ED 406 056

TITLE

INSTITUTION

REPORT NOPUB DATENOTE

AVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

PS 025 304

Hearing on the Contract with America: Nutrition, theLocal Perspective. Hearing before the Committee onEconomic and Educational Opportunities. House ofRepresentatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, FirstSession.Congress of the U.S., Washington, DC. House Committeeon Economic and Educational Opportunities.ISBN-0-16-047453-11 Feb 95176p.; Serial No. 104-23. Document contains severalpages of small print.U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent ofDocuments, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC20402.Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials (090)

MF01/PC08 Plus Postage,Block Grants; Breakfast Programs; FederalLegislation; *Federal Programs; Federal StateRelationship; Financial Support; Hearings; LunchPrograms; *NutritionCongress 104th; *Contract with America; NutritionServices; Older Americans Act 1965; PersonalResponsib Work Opportun Reconcil Act 1996; SeniorNutrition Program; Special Milk Program; WomenInfants Children Supplemental Food Program

This hearing transcript presents testimony on theeffects of placing federal nutrition programs in state block grantsas required by the Personal Responsibility Act, the welfare billcontained in the "Contract with America." Witnesses testified thatfederal food programs such as Women Infants and Children (WIC), theSenior Nutrition Program, and school lunch, breakfast, and milkprograms, are effective; diminished federal support for nutritionprograms will create an unfunded liability for states, localities,and private charities; there are problems in predictability andresponsiveness of funding levels in a block grant approach tonutrition programs; changes in nutrition programs could result ingreater efficiency; and there are problems in proposed cappedentitlement approaches. Testimony was offered by: (1) representativesof school districts; (2) the president of a food research center; (3)

a director of a hospital WIC program; (4) the executive director of asenior citizens council; (5) the director of a nutrition servicesprogram; and (6) representatives from Missouri, Illinois,Pennsylvania, Texas, Rhode Island, and California. (KDFB)

***********************************:************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

HEARING ON THE CONTRACT WITH AMERICA:

NUTRITION, THE LOCAL PERSPECTIVE

PS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it

0 Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction quality.

HEARING Points of view or opmions stated in this docu-ment do not necessarily represent official

BEFORE THE OERI position or policy.

COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC ANDEDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIESHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 1, 1995

Serial No. 104-23

Printed for the use of the Committee on Economicand Educational Opportunities

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

92-373 CC WASHINGTON : 1995

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing OfficeSuperintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402

ISBN 0-16-047453-1

2

COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

WILLIAM F. GOODLING,THOMAS E. PETRI, WisconsinMARGE ROUKEMA, New JerseySTEVE GUNDERSON, WisconsinHARRIS W. FAWELL, IllinoisCASS BALLENGER, North CarolinaBILL E. BARRETT, NebraskaRANDY "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM, CaliforniaPETER HOEKSTRA, MichiganHOWARD P. "BUCK" McKEON, CaliforniaMICHAEL N. CASTLE, DelawareJAN MEYERS, KansasSAM JOHNSTON, TexasJAMES M. TALENT, MissouriJAMES C. GREENWOOD, PennsylvaniaTIM HTJTCHINSON, ArkansasJOSEPH K. KNOLLENBERG, MichiganFRANK D. RIGGS, CaliforniaLINDSEY 0. GRAHAM, South CarolinaDAVE WELDON, FloridaDAVID FUNDERBURK, North CarolinaMARK SOUDER, IndianaDAVID McINTOSH, IndianaCHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia

Pennsylvania, ChairmanWILLIAM (BILL) CLAY, MissouriGEORGE MILLER, CaliforniaDALE E. KILDEE, MichiganPAT WILLIAMS, MontanaMATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, CaliforniaMAJOR R. OWENS, New YorkTHOMAS C. SAWYER, OhioDONALD M. PAYNE, New JerseyPATSY T. MINK, HawaiiROBERT E. ANDREWS, New JerseyJACK REED, Rhode IslandTIM ROEMER, IndianaELIOT L. ENGEL, New YorkXAVIER BECERRA, CaliforniaROBERT C. "BOBBY" SCOTT, VirginiaGENE GREEN, TexasLYNN C. WOOLSEY, California,CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO,

Puerto RicoMEL REYNOLDS, Illinois

JAY M. EAGEN, Staff DirectorGAIL E. WEISS, Minority Staff Director

3

CONTENTS

PageHearing held in Washington, DC, February 1, 1995 1Statement of:

Boyd W., Boehlje, President, Pella Iowa School Board, Pella School Dis-trict 45

Fersh, Robert J., President, Food Research and Action Center 1Hurt, Marilyn, Food Service Supervisor, School District of La Crosse 74Lukefahr, James L., Medical Director, Driscoll Children's Hospital WIC

Program 36Taylor, Joan, Executive Director, Du Page Senior Citizens Council 55TempleWest, Patrick F. E., Director, Nutrition Development Services,

Archdiocese of Philadelphia 64Prepared statements, letters, supplemental materials, et cetera:

Boehlje, Boyd W., President, Pella Iowa School Board, Pella School Dis-trict, prepared statement of 48

Clay, Hon. William L., a Representative in Congress from the Stateof Missouri, prepared statement of 169

Additional material submitted for the record by 87Fawell, Hon. Harris W., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Illinois, additional material submitted for the record by 55Fersh, Robert J., President, Food Research and Action Center, prepared

statement of 6Additional material submitted for the record by 98

Goodling, Hon. William F., a Representative in Congress from the Stateof Pennsylvania, additional material submitted for the record by 162

Green, Hon. Gene, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas,prepared statement of 170

Hurt, Marilyn, Food Service Supervisor, School District of La Crosse,prepared statement of 77

Kennedy, Hon. Patrick J., a Representative in Congress from the Stateof Rhode Island, prepared statement of 170

Lukefahr, James L., Medical Director, Driscoll Children's Hospital WICProgram, prepared statement of 38

Martinez, Hon. Matthew G., a Representative in Congress from the Stateof California, additional material submitted for the record by 129

Taylor, Joan, Executive Director, Dupage Senior Citizens Council, pre-pared statement of 57

TempleWest, Patrick F. E., Dire'dor, Nutrition Development Services,Archdiocese of Philadelphia, prepared statement of 67

HEARING ON THE CONTRACT WITH AMERICA:NUTRITION, THE LOCAL PERSPECTIVE

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1995

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND

EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES,Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., Room 2175,Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. William F. Good ling, Chair-man, presiding.

Memebers present: Representatives Good ling, Gunderson, Fa-well, Ballenger, Barrett, Cunningham, Hoekstra, McKeon, Castle,Meyers, Talent, Johnson, Greenwood, Hutcinson, Knollenberg,Riggs, Weldon, Funderburk, Souder, Norwood, Clay, Miller, Kildee,Martinez, Owens, Sawyer, Payne, Reed, Roemer, Engel, Green,Woolsey, and Reynolds.

Staff present: June L. Harris, Education Coordinator; KimberlyBarr, Legislative Intern; and Laura Geer, Staff Assistant.

Chairman GOODLING. The purpose of today's hearing is to hearfrom individuals who work with all of our important nutrition pro-grams. I will call you to the table at this time.

Robert J. Fersh is the President of Food Research and ActionCenter, located in DC.

Boyd Boehlje is a local school board member in Pella, Iowa.Marilyn Hurt is the Director of Job Nutrition in LaCrosse, Wis-

consin.Dr. James Lukefahr has been a practicing pediatrician for 14

years, serves as the medical doctor of the Driscoll Children's Hos-pital WIC Program in Corpus Christi, Texas.

Joan Taylor is the Executive Director of the Du Page Senior Citi-zens Council in Du Page, Illinois.

And Patrick Temple-West is the Director of Nutrition Develop-ment Service, an office of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Phila-delphia.

If you will all come around the table, we will get started prompt-ly. My colleagues say they don't get enough time to ask questions.Can you help by summarizing your testimony so we can get at youwith questions.

We will start with Robert Fersh.STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. FERSH, PRESIDENT, FOOD

RESEARCH AND ACTION CENTERMr. FERSH. Mr. Chairman, Members of the committee, thank you

very much for this opportunity to testify this morning.(1)

2

Mr. Chairman, we have come to work with you under the dif-ficult constraints we all face to try to make sure that nutrition pro-grams in this country continue to serve the populations who arevulnerable and in need of assistance.

We, as FRAC, do not come with a blank slate. We have a longhistory of working with these programs. We would like you to thinkof us as an organization with its fingers on the pulse of so manyactors involved in this world. Whether it is State and local admin-istrators, WIC directors, recipients, the business community, weare in touch with everyone involved in this community, and wethink it is terribly important that all the insights and knowledgethat we can glean from them be presented to you so you can makeimportant and practical and sensitive decisions that affect the sta-tus of the most vulnerable Americans.

We know that you all share our goals, that vulnerable popu-lations, the children, elderly and the poor have adequate nutrition.And this committee has a long history of bipartisan support. Andno one is more responsible than you, Mr. Chairman, for ensuringthat there is bipartisan support for nutrition programs in thiscountry.

We note the process you face is not easy. There are political pres-sures to act very quickly. There are budget pressures that may pre-vent you from makingthere are budget pressures that I think canlimit the choices you make as you move forward.

I appreciate having my entire statement in the record. In mylimited time this morning, let me just articulate a few themes thatwe can explore in greater detail in questions.

Let me point out, earlier in my testimony I mentioned I was inWichita, Kansas, two weeks ago. I had a number of remarkable ex-periences while I was there. I had the honor of having dinner witheight State legislators, six Republicans, two Democrats, includingthe current Speaker of the House of the Kansas legislature, a Re-publican, and his Republican predecessor.

The next morning I had the honor of meeting with the new Re-publican Governor of Kansas. I can tell you that my overwhelmingimpression of those conversations was that people out there needtime to think about this. They really don't understand what isgoing on here. They are deeply concerned about what could happen.And I urge you above all not to rush decisions before you fully haveheard from people out in the field.

Perhaps nothing more important happened in Kansas than an in-cident that happened in a press conference in which I participated.That morning the principal of an elementary school where we hada press conference on child and hunger made an impromptu ap-pearance before us at the event. She described an incident thathappened just minutes before in her office. And by the time she fin-ished, there was a barely a dry eye in the entire room.

That morning a child came into her office crying, wholly unset-tled. Trish Peters, the assistant principal, calmed her, then reachedfor some food she keeps in her office for such occasions. Withinminutes the child recovered and joined her classmates, ready tolearn.

She went on to tell how important breakfast and lunch programsare to the children in her school. For some reason the child in her

6

3

office that morning had missed breakfast. She then made clear thatin the absence of the breakfast program, this problem would bemultiplied many times over on a daily basis.

I can tell from your years of experience talking to peopleandyou have all heard these witnesses for yearsthat this is not anisolated event. We were told by teachers, principals and schoolnurses that this is a daily occurrence across the country, and I sus-pect all of you have heard similar testimony from people who oper-ate all the Federal nutrition programs, which are indeed commu-nity nutrition programs, which local communities have chosen tooperate.

In our view, these programs represent federalism working at itsbest. They were voluntary programs that State and local govern-ments, education districts, and community organizations are choos-ing to utilize in increasing numbers all the time.

These programs create no unfunded mandate. To the contrary,the Federal food assistance dollars often serve as seed moneywhich reference additional contributions of State, local, and privatemoney as well as volunteer time to deliver a range of integratedservices for children, the elderly and others.

If Federal support is diminished or the current structure weak-ened, we fear that an unfunded liability will be created for Statesand localities and private charities.

Mr. Chairman, throughout my testimony, I cite lots of other ex-amples. I want to just summarize one other real-life example of aprogram that is working and why the nutrition programs are so es-sential.

Last May I had the opportunity to visit a program called LA'sBEST in Los Angeles. It is a program started under Mayor Brad-ley, now run out of Mayor Reardon's office with his very active sup-port.

Every day in Los Angeles, 245 days a year, from 2:30 p.m. to6:00 p.m., 4,500 low-income elementary school youngsters receiveafter-school care. There have been several evaluations in the seven-year history of this program that document that LA's BEST in-cludes scholastic performance, fosters behavior changes, decreasescrime and improves the children's sense of safety in their environ-ment. As Ms. Sanger, Carla Sanger, the Director says, "We arewinning the war of the gangs for these kids' attention."

What Carla Sanger will tell you is that the meal supplement pro-vided after school is the key to organizing this program. It is whatbrings children in the door. It is what settles them down. It is whatallows them to do their homework. And the absence of secure fund-ing for this program, she fears attendance may go down and theabilities to expand and reach thousands of L.A. inner-city young-sters will be diminished.

The bottom line of my testimony is that the Federal food pro-grams work. They work individually and they work as a system.They have been well designed. You have done your job well.

I want to say a special word for the WIC program. I think thereis no program in the history of the Federal Government that hasbeen more thoroughly evaluated with better success than WIC.

WIC reduces the fetal death rate by 20 to 30 percent. It reducesinfant deaths. It reduces low birth weight. It reduces premature

4

births and other maladies. It is associated with the increased useof prenatal and pediatric health care, increased immunization ratesand increased potential cognitive development. It is associated withimmense Federal and State savings.

For every dollar spent on the prenatal component on care in thiscountry, we save three to four dollars. Here the issue of convertingto a different kind of approach, maybe a block grant, puts at riskthe success of this program, not only the success for the women ininfants and children, but also puts as risk the savings we hope toachieve.

So I urge you to look closely on this program. I know there willbe other witnesses on this program as well as the school lunch andbreakfast programs this morning.

But I want to highlight that program because I sense it is atgreat risk. For me this is really hard to explain, given that it isa program that doesn't need to be reinvented.

Mr. Chairman, on page 8 of my testimony I go through a seriesof changes that we would recommend for these programs. I will notdetail them today.

I don't come before you to say the programs are perfect. Thereare changes that should be made in these programs, there are con-solidations that can be made, increased flexibility that can beachieved for the States. There are many, many changes we can do,and we would love to work together with you on them. I have high-lighted those kinds of changes.

Later in my testimony I do go through in detail problems thatwe foresee with the block grant. We think basically any approachthat you take should meet a couple of fundamental standards. I amspeaking now on the bottom of page 9 of my testimony.

Will all individuals currently eligible and in need of assistancereceive the same level assistance?

What assurances are there that new approaches will work aswell or better than the current system in meeting the objectives ofnutrition programs?

We think there are huge issues with any block grant approachin terms of predictability and responsiveness of funding levels. Wehave great concern that there is unmet need that block grantswould not respond to. We have some concerns based on my con-versations with CEOs, business people, on the duplication of stand-ards within States. We have concerns about false impressions onhow much money can be saved through administrative costs.

Unless we are talking about consolidating all programs into one,unless we are talking about eliminating feeding kids throughschools, delivering WIC benefits through the health programs,which is so essential to the success that they be linked with healthservice, unless we are talking about eliminating some safety netprogram like food stamps, we are going to continue to have manydifferent programs that ought to be run out of different places, andwe believe that the administrative savings that might be achievedwill be very small, and nowhere close to the cutbacks that arebeing talked about in terms of block grants.

Let me conclude by again stating our willingness, our opennessand our desire to work with you in the difficult weeks you faceahead. We believe that there is a strong movement within this

5

country for some changes and want to be responsive to that. Webelieve there is strong opinion that welfare reform ought to moveforward.

We strongly believe, however, that the food assistance programsshould not be part of welfare reform. They are programs that havebeen uniquely successful, have been documented to do so. Theirsuccess has been well documented.

I am attaching, as part of my testimony, a statement signed nowby hundreds of organizations across the country under the bannerof "Save Our Nutrition Programs Now." These groups are joiningin incredible numbers every day to say that we hope that you willgo slow on this, and to express the deep concern about the advis-ability of eliminating the Federal food assistance programs.

If, in fact, your goals are to save money, we can reluctantly helpyou achieve those goals. If the goals are to increase flexibility andstreamline administration, we believe there is tremendous areaswhere people from across the spectrum can work together.

But if part of the notion is that we need to back off from the Fed-eral commitment to nutrition, and for some I think even a sensethat we need to be doing away with these programs, that is wherewe draw the line.

We believe that we need to continue to work on developing a sys-tem that is responsive to people in need, that will not throw outthe baby with the bath water, and we hope that you, with the wis-dom of the entire Congress and the witnesses you brought together,can make these decisions very wisely in the coming weeks.

Thank you very much.[The prepared statement of Mr. Fersh follows:]

6

Testimony of Robert J. Fersh, President,Food Research and Action Center, before the

Committee on Economic and Educational OpportunitiesFebruary 1, 1995

FOOD RESEARCH

& ACTION CENTER L Introduction

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Representative Clay, and Members of theCommittee, for the opportunity to testify today. I am accompanied byEdward Cooney, Vice President and Deputy Director of the FoodResearch and Action Center, a face that is very familiar to many ofyou. As President of FRAC, I speak on behalf of a national, non-profit,non-partisan organization dedicated to alleviating domestic hunger. Weserve as the coordinating agentfor, hundreds of national, state, and localorganizations involved in the Campaign to End Childhood Hunger. Mytestimony will focus on food assistance issues before the committee.

1875 Connecticut Ave., NWSuite 540Washington, DC 20009TEL: (202) 986-2200FAX: (202) 986-2525

At FRAC, we regularly are in touch with a broad range of individualsand groups concerned with the nutritional status of Americans. Ourtestimony today will reflect input from governors, state legislators, thebusiness community, nutritionists, educators, health providers, state andlocal program administrators, program beneficiaries, and many others.Our hope is to provide important information and insight for the crucialdeliberations your committee faces in the coming weeks.

We appreciate the enormity of the task you face. We know well thiscommittee's history of bipartisan support for the mission of theseprogramsto feed school children; provide nutrition, health care andcounseling services to poor pregnant women and their children; preparemeals for the elderly; and provide food for Head Start and other childcare facilities. No one has been more instrumental than you, Mr.Chairman, in building and maintaining a bipartisan approach on theseissues.

As you weigh what could be a dramatic change in approach to theseprogramsan approach that could shrink and potentially destabilizethese programs you have championed, an appropriate place to begin iswith an evaluation of their effectiveness.

10

7

H. Overview of the Programs

Two weeks ago today, I was in Wichita, Kansas, for the release of a statewide studyof childhood hunger sponsored by the local food bank and an interfaith organization.The event was held at Colvin Elementary School and the assistant principal, TrishPeters, was an impromptu participant in the proceedings.

Ms. Peters described an incident that had occurred just minutes before. A child wasin her office, crying and wholly unsettled. Ms. Peters calmed her and then reachedfor some food she keeps in her office for just these occasions. Within minutes thechild recovered and rejoined her classmates, ready to learn.

Ms. Peters went on to say how important the school breakfast and lunch programsare to the success of her school. Colvin Elementary serves primarily low-incomechildren, and for some reason, the child in her office that morning had missedbreakfast. Ms. Peters made clear that, in the absence of the breakfast program, thisproblem would be multiplied many times over on a daily basis.

This incident in Wichita is not an isolated event. We are told by teachers, principalsand school nurses that this is a daily occurrence across the country.

Consider this testimony provided in October 1992 by Cynthia Walters, a kindergartenteacher at Robbins Elementary School in Trenton, New Jersey.

This is my second year supervising the Breakfast Program, andI have witnessed the difference a healthy breakfast makes in astudent's performance in school. Children who participate in theprogram come to my class, not just alert and ready, but eager tolearn.

The staff at school always realized the importance of a goodbreakfast. Long before this program began, many of us took itupon ourselves to feed hungry students. We kept foods likecrackers and peanut butter on band in our classrooms. Childrencan't concentrate on learning when their minds are on how soonlunch will be served.

I expected to see a change in students' learning after the programbegan, but I was surprised that the School Breakfast Programalso provided other benefits. We watched children who had

2

1 1

8

always been chronically late, now arriving on time anxiouslywaiting for breakfast to begin.

The art of conversation between students of all ages, races andreligions began to unfold. On any given day there is dialogueranging from school gossip to world events. Through thisprogram teachers and other staff also get to talk informally withstudents and get to know them better.

The School Breakfast Program gives the schools the opportunityto get the community more involved. We not only feed school-aged children, but also many younger siblings and parents. Forsome adults this provides an important first step in more activeinvolvement in their children's academic life. The interactionthat occurs in the cafeteria before school carries over to theclassroom and to the home.

Or, consider this story we recently heard from a day care center in New Brunswick,New Jersey, that participates in the Child and Adult Care Food Program:

Four-year old Tabitha arrived at the day care center on her firstmorning there after a one-week Christmas break. The momentshe walked into the center, her first word to the director, Mr.Harris, were, "When can I get my hot lunch?" This is anindication of how important CACFP-funded meals are topreschool children.

Similar testimony can and has been provided by people involved in the WIC program;people who feed children in child care centers, family day care homes, and afterschool settings; and people who care for the elderly. What they tell us is what youalready know: children who begin their day with a balanced meal and receive anutritious lunch are more successful in school; mothers who enjoy a proper dietduring pregnancy give birth to healthier babies; elderly people are less frail, lessisolated and are more likely to remain independent and stay out of institutional carefacilities longer when they can eat a nutritious meal each day in a social setting; andHead Start centers and other child care providers are far more successful in theirmissions if children in their care are properly fed.

Beyond the anecdotal evidence is a wealth of statistical and analytical informationthat supports what people on the front lines are telling us. The bottom line is that theindividual food programs work and they work together as a system.

3

12

. 9

Thirty years ago, strong evidence of widespread hunger and undemutrition emergedin this country. The federal government already had established the National SchoolLunch Program as a matter of national security in 1946. Now it stepped in again,supported by both Republican and Democratic administrations and bipartisancoalitions in Congress, to address this problem in partnership with state and localgovernments and community-based organizations. Approaches were designed forvarious vulnerable populations and the nutritional status of Americans has improveddramatically.

Overall, the effect has been:

A significant decrease in growth stunting (low height for age), a key measureof chronic undernutrition.

A reduction in the prevalence of anemia.

An improvement in dietary intake.

While problems of hunger and undemutrition remain, the federal programs have madean enormous difference. These programs represent federalism working at its best.They are voluntary programs that state and local governments, education districts andcommunity organizations are choosing to utilize in increasing numbers all the time.Over ninety percent of our nation's schools offer the school lunch program becauselocal school boards, administrators, and communities recognize its effectiveness andvalue. Programs like school lunch have appropriate national standards that allowflexible local implementation.

These programs create no "unfunded mandate". To the contrary, the federal fooddollars often serve as "seed money," which leverages additional contributions of state,local and private money and volunteer time to deliver a range of integrated servicesfor children, the elderly and others.

Hunger is a problem that must be solved at both the national and community level.The federal government has provided a means for local citizens to forge appropriatesolutions. If these programs are to be substantially reformed, we must take care notto create an "unfunded liability" in local communities across the country. Contraryto popular misaonceptions, state and local governments and private charities indicateemphatically that they are in no position to pick up the slack should the federalcommitment of resources and leadership be diminished.

4

13

10

III. Food Programs as Empowerment Tools

It also is important to understand that these food programs are part ofa larger wholethey are integral to strategies to improve the long-term prospects for children's livesthat go far beyond their nutritional status. The WIC program itself embodies this,with the integration of prenatal and pediatric care, nutrition counseling, and nutritionassistance. The 1994 Carnegie Study of Children in Family Child Care and RelativeCare reported that 87 percent of the family child care homes considered to beproviding good quality child care participated in the CACFP. There are many otherexamples:

Carla Sanger directs an after school program known as LA's BEST. Thisprogram serves about 4,500 inner city elementary school children daily, 245days a year. The program operates 2:30-6:00 pm in twenty schools, duringwhich time the children do school work, play sports, learn to use computersand engage in artistic and cultural activities. Independent evaluationsdocument that LA's BEST improves scholastic performance, fosters positivebehavior changes, decreases crime and improves the children's sense of safetyin their environment. As Ms. Sanger says, "We are winning the war with thegangs for these kids' attention."

What Ms. Sanger also would tell you is that the meal supplement provided bythe Child and Adult Care Food Program to children when they arrive is criticalto her success. It draws children into the program, provides them with theextra nutrition they need, and allows them to focus on the after schoolenrichment activities. On January 17, 1995, she wrote to Senator RichardLugar:

"There is no question that without federal reimbursementfor food, this important component of the after schoolprograms will be diminished or eliminated, and likelyimpact the daily attendance of children who sodesperately need and benefit from after schoolprograms."

Without the assurance of federal funding for a snack, it will be very difficultfor Ms. Sanger to reach her goal of expanding to fifty schools and serving10,000 children a day.

In Hoquiam Park, Washington, the Parks and Recreation Board works with theschool district, police and fire associations, and a variety of civic clubs to

5

14

11

provide a summer recreation program to over 200 children a day. Thecommunity has pieced together crime prevention funds, AmeriCorpsparticipants, private money and the USDA Summer Food Program to make theprogram work. Kristi Earley, Program Director, says the meal served is thefoundation for the program and helps draw the high daily attendance. A localpolice sergeant says the program stops children from having to steal to eat.The summer program has been so successful in organizing activities for low-income youth that it has led to a year-round after school program.

In Pittston, Pennsylvania, the school system effectively combined a readingprogram with school breakfast Known as the PAC Program (for Pittston AreaCapable), children from grade four and up volunteer to read to youngerchildren after they finish their school breakfast The younger children areengaged in a learning activity that maintains their interest and requires littlesupervision. An interesting side effect of the program has been to makeparticipation in the School Breakfast Program more popular and resolved manyschool officials' initial concerns about securing supervision for bothparticipants and non-participants in the School Breakfast Program.

Much to the surprise of both teachers and administrators, all of their olderstudents relish the opportunity the program offers to demonstrate leadershipand support as role models for younger students. This attitude has prevailedamong students previously thought to have behavior problems, as well as thosewith reading difficulties.

IV. Individual ProgramsAchievements and Improvements

Each of the federal food assistance programs makes an enormous contribution and hasachieved documented success:

The WIC Program serves about 7 million Americans a month, including fivemillion infants and children and 2 million pregnant or post-partum women.The documentation of WIC's success is unparalleled. WIC reduces the fetaldeath rate by 20 to 33 percent, infant deaths, low birth weight, prematurebirths and other maladies. WIC is associated with increased use of prenataland pediatric health care, increased immunization rates, and potentiallyincreased cognitive development Various studies suggest that for each dollarspent on pregnant women in WIC, $3 to $4 in health care and other costs areaverted.

6

15

12

The National School Lunch Program serves about 26 million school childrena day, including over 13 million from low-income households. Studies showthat school lunch provides these children with one-third to one-half of theirdaily nutrient intake.

The School Breakfast Program serves about 6 million children a day, of whom87 percent come from low-income homes. Studies show that school breakfastis associated with higher performance in standardized test scores, and reducedtardiness and absenteeism. Teachers report far greater attentiveness in school.

The Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) serves about 2 millionchildren a day, approximately half of whom come from low-income families.The 1994 Carnegie report, Starting Points: Meeting the Needs of OurYoungest Children, documents that the functioning from preschool throughadulthood: "...hinges, to a significant extent, on their experiences before theage of 3." USDA studies have shown that CACFP improves the nutritionalvalue of meals eaten by preschoolers in child care settings. (see attachedCACFP Sponsors Forum position statement)

The Summer Food Program provides meals to about 2 million children a dayduring the summer months. Virtually all participants are low income.Summer Food provides one-third of children's Recommended DailyAllowances for key nutrients.

Elderly feeding programs serve 2.5 million people in congregate mealprograms in senior centers, churches, and community locations. They alsoreach 820,000 frail elders with home-delivered meals. About half of thebeneficiaries of these programs are low income. Along with providing olderAmericans with nutritious meals, these programs are a gateway to otherservices for seniors. Research on these programs demonstrates thatparticipating improves the nutritional intakes of older people. It also showsthat the negative impact of low income on diet is substantially ameliorated bythese programs.

Although not in this committee's jurisdiction, the Food Stamp Program is acentral part of this nation's nutrition assistance. Currently about 27 millionAmericans receive food stamps. About 97 percent of all benefits go tohouseholds at or below the poverty line; over half of all benefits go to familieswith incomes below halfthe poverty line. Children comprise 51 percent of allparticipants and children and their families receive 82 percent of all benefits.

16

-13

About 16 percent of all households have an elderly member. Studies showthat food stamps increase the nutritional quality of diets of participants by 20to 40 percent.

TEFAP has provided direct assistance to millions of people through thedistribution of commodities. These vulnerable individuals include those notserved by the Food Stamp program and many Food Stamp recipients who runout of food before the end of the month.. TEFAP commodities account for12.9 percent of the food distributed through the Second Harvest Network offood banks. Children and the elderly make up a significant portion ofemergency food clients. Recent unemployment in the household is the majorreason clients of food pantries say they need this additional assistance.

This information is not provided to say the programs are perfect. We at FRAC havelong advocated changes to improve their effectiveness and would be pleased to workwith you to refine these. Here are examples of reforms we would support:

We support thoughtful efforts to consolidate programs operated out of schools.There is no need for multiple application forms, eligibility requirements, andreimbursement rates if a school is operating several programs to feedessentially the same children at different times of the day or year. There canbe much greater coordination between the School Lunch and BreakfastPrograms, and that same information and bookkeeping process could beutilized if a school serves a snack to children after school hours through theChild and Adult Care Food Program. Similarly, although there are sometrickier issues here, we believe a streamlining of paperwork could occur if aschool chooses to provide meals through the Summer Feeding Program whenschool is out The bottom line is that there is great potential to streamline andconsolidate programs so that schools can operate one basic nutrition programrather than three or four.

While there must be adequate federal accountability over child nutrition funds,we believe the degree of auditing that occurs in the schools and otherinstitutions must be eased. The level of detail and oversight reflects very littletrust in state and local governments. We believe that some acceptablestandards can be set without the kind of detailed oversight that has been builtup and retained under the aegis of both Republican and Democraticadministrations in recent years.

8

17

14

In addition to schools, we believe that there should be a consolidation ofnutrition programs offered by various non-profit institutions and asimplification of paperwork for them. Some institutions, such as churches,Boys Clubs or Girls Clubs, YMCA's or YWCA's, may be utilizing the Childand Adult Care Food Program and the Summer Food Program to feed differentstudents at different points in the year. We believe they would welcome aconsolidation of paperwork and the coordination of reimbursements.

There are a series of other more detailed proposals we would be willing tosubmit on the general issue of bookkeeping and paperwork in these programs.Again, the level of detail and the level of oversight is excessive, in our view.

In the food stamp program, we support changes to speed up theimplementation of Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) systems. EBT can helptrack and prevent fraud and also can make food stamps more efficient. Wealso support coordination of key definitions of income and assets with theAFDC program, simplification of the application process for certainhouseholds, and coordination of the employment and training program withAFDC and other employment and training programs..

I am confident there are other ideas that can be put forward to ease the administrationof the programs that are not listed here. Needless to say, the cumulative effect of allthese changes would not only ease administration for state and local officials, butwould be of benefit to the ultimate recipients, mainly children. If low incomefamilies do not have to fill out multiple applications, it should ease children'sparticipation in a variety of programs.

V. Concerns with a Block Grant Approach

As Congress reexamines many national programs and the appropriate roles fordifferent levels of government, we urge you to keep in mind two fundamentalconsiderations for your decision-making process:

Will all individuals currently eligible and in need of assistance receive thesame level of service?

What assurances are there that new approaches will work as well or better thanthe current system in meeting the objectives of the nutrition programs?

9

is

15

If these questions cannot be answered satisfactorily, we urge you to resist makingchanges that may, at best, lead to uncertainty and at worst, to a major step backwardin this country's commitment to the health and nutritional status of all its members.

While the details of various proposals vary, we view with alarm the concept ofrepealing all current food assistance programs and replacing them with block grantfunding. Our concerns range from a loss of service to vulnerable people to anunnecessary impediment to interstate commerce. Here are our concerns:

1) Predictability and Responsiveness of Funding

The current funding mechanisms for most nutrition programs allow state andlocal program administrators to know well in advance how much funding they willreceive per individual who qualifies for services. Under a block grant, the level offederal funding, as well as the allocation within a state, may be uncertain. This cancreate havoc with the need of local administrators to plan.

Even if predictable funding could be provided, a block grant approach is likelyto be far less equitable and responsive than the current system.

No matter what funding formula is utilized to distribute money to thestates, it will be out of date. Each year, there are demographic changeswithin states due to unemployment levels, population growth, aging andother factors. It is very difficult to devise a formula that takes theseinto account adequately. Over time inequities among states will grow.

Block grants do not respond well to changes within a state or localcommunity within a funding year. If a state experiences a majorrecession, it will find it difficult to respond to increased demand forschool lunch and food stamp assistanceespecially at the very time itsown state revenues are down. The result may well be waiting lists forassistance or across the board cutbacks in benefits or in the quality ofmeals served.

2) Response to Unmet Need

By freezing or cutting funding levels, block grants remove from state and localgovernments the choice they now have to expand certain nutrition services. Forexample, from 1989 to 1994, Kansas increased its participation in School Breakfast

10

19

16

from 9,000 to over 60,000 children a day. Such a choice would be impossible undera block grant approach, unless the state could find its own resources or cut otherprograms.

Similarly, many states are now expanding after school services to help latch-key and other children. Under a block grant, they could not readily access fundingfor after school snacks, a potentially critical ingredient in the success of suchprograms.

3) Administrative Savings

We are aware of the argument that block grants will create such largeadministrative savings through the consolidation of programs that beneficiaries willnot be hurt. We urge close examination of this issue because we believe there arelimited savings to be realized.

First, administrative costs are a relatively small proportion of all food programcosts. Even if a significant portion of administrative savings could be achieved, littlemoney would be freed up for benefits. If programs are turned back to the states, theystill will have to maintain adequate screening and accountability systems.

Furthermore, unless we envision ending meal service in schools, health andnutrition benefits through a WIC-type program, hot meals for the elderly, and ageneral program of assistance like food stamps, states will still have to operatemultiple programs through various agencies. The result will be relatively littlesavings in administration for them. Total federal costs of administering foodassistance programs equal less than one percent of the programs' overall budget.

4) Interstate Issues

Many new problems would be created by 50 separate food assistanceapproaches in the states.

Right now food manufacturers can produce school and child care mealsunder a uniform national standard for portion sizes and nutritionalcontent. If states can each set their own standards, this efficiencywould be lost. Also, states would find it much harder to coordinateamong themselves to standardize approaches to work with the foodindustry.

17

People who live right on the border of a state could not be assured ofthe ability to use food stamps or WIC vouchers across state lines. Foodretail stores which operate across states might have to set up differentand costly systems in each state to deal with food stamps and WIC. (Acopy of the Food Marketing Institute statement calling for nationaluniformity on this issue is attached to this testimony.)

Multiple state programs could create hardship for some peopleinstrumental in delivering our national harvest to the country. Migrantfarm workers are protected by special provisions in the WIC and foodstamp programs that could evaporate if each state sets up its own foodassistance system.

5) Nutritional Standards

One of the keys to the success of child nutrition programs has been theestablishment of nutritional standards to ensure that these programs meet theirobjectives. In the absence of nutritional standards, it is very difficult to gaugewhether these programs are achieving their intended results. While there has beenmuch debate about how detailed these standards should be and how they should beenforced, there is widespread agreement among program administrators, health andnutrition experts, and the food industry, that there should be national standards to helpensure adequate nutrition and effective administration in these programs.

If we move to a block grant approach, and there are no national nutritionstandards, it will be very difficult for taxpayers to ensure that their dollars are beingspent appropriately. How would we know how well state programs are serving theirintended purposes? The absence of national standards also means that every statewould have to develop its own standards for nutrition. This would seem to involve=necessary duplication and overlap among the various states.

6) Adequacy of Funding

Related to the point above, we believe that conversion to a block grant for foodassistance will inevitably lead to a loss of support for this important function. Whenthere are fifty different state programs, especially if national nutrition standards arenot present, it will be very difficult to evaluate the success of the various programsand to set appropriate funding levels. Even if some states are hugely successful anddocument the need for more assistance, such help may not be forthcoming if otherstates' performance is less stellar.

12

21

18

While we understand that some people believe the federal government shouldnot be in the nutrition assistance business at all, and may find comfort in thisargument, we suggest that this should be a clear and up front decision. If one believesin a continuing and responsive national role in nutrition assistance, conversion to ablock grant is likely to make this far more difficult to achieve.

VI. Conclusion

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today. This committee hasenormous responsibilities at a time of great change. It will require great wisdom todetermine in what areas there needs to be fundamental change and what areas theredoes not. In the area of nutrition, we urge you to refrain from dismantling what hasbeen a highly effective and highly appropriate response from the federal governmentto the needs of vulnerable citizens.

As you deliberate, we urge you to keep in mind a warning sounded last year byProfessor Ernesto Pollitt, a leading researcher in the nutrition field. He said, "Wehave now learned that even moderate undernutrition, the type most frequently seenin the United Sates, can have lasting effects on the cognitive development ofchildren." (The Link Between Nutrition and Cognitive Development in Children,Tufts University Center. of Hunger, Poverty and Nutrition Policy, 1994)

In FRAC's own groundbreaking study of childhood hunger, the CommunityChildhood Hunger Identification Project, we found that in comparison to non-hungrychildren, hungry children were:

more than three times as likely to suffer from unwanted weight loss

more than four times as likely to suffer from fatigue

almost three times as likely to suffer from irritability

more than 12 times as likely to report dizziness

more than twice as likely to have frequent headaches

almost twice as likely to have frequent ear infections

almost three times as likely to suffer from concentration problems; and

almost twice as likely to have frequent colds.

13

o2

19

With these consequences in mind, we should err on the side of ensuring that ourchildren and other vulnerable citizens have enough to eat. As you continue to explorethese issues, we believe you will find a groundswell of support to maintain currentprograms. I am attaching to my testimony several supporting documents, includinga copy of a letter now endorsed by hundreds of organizations and individuals underthe heading, "Save Our Nation's Nutrition Programs," and position statements fromeducation officials on the nutrition program block grant.

We urge you not to rush any of your decisions. The results could well be chaos forstate and local government and for vulnerable Americans. We stand ready to assistyou in any way possible in your further deliberations.

23

20

January 31, 1995

Dear

We are concerned individuals and organizations who constitute an emergency committeecalled Save Our Nation's Nutrition Programs. We are united by the following principles:

1) Meeting the needs of our most vulnerable people, including children andthe elderly, should remain a high priority for the federal government. Wesupport funding and benefit levels adequate to meet the intended purposesof our nation's health and nutrition programs.

2) Levels of support to individuals and institutions should be predictable andshould be responsive to changes in circumstances.

3) Nutrition standards are important to the integrity and effectiveness of ournation's nutrition programs.

4) Our nation's nutrition programs should be well managed, including effortsto preserve program integrity.

5) Replacing current nutrition programs with a "block grant" approach raisesstrong concerns whether the above principles can be met.

Our nation's nutrition programs effectively meet the nutritional needs of millions of ourmost vulnerable citizens, regardless of the state or community in which they reside.While these programs serve Americans of all ages, the assistance is provided primarily tolow-income children and elderly persons. We strongly urge the maintenance of thisfundamental national safety net. Cutting nutrition assistance is simply short-sighted.When people -- particularly children -- don't eat, they cannot learn, do poorly in school,and end up, along with the elderly, in hospitals or doctor's offices, where Medicare andMedicaid pick up the tab. Savings achieved at the expense of nutrition are lost later inhigher educational, criminal justice, and health care costs.

We believe improvements can and should be made in our nation's nutrition programs.Efforts to streamline program administration, coordinate benefit delivery and preserveprogram integrity should be encouraged. However, the basic structure and fundingmechanisms of these programs should be maintained to meet the needs of vulnerablepopulations.

The "block grant" approach to these programs raises troubling concerns. The inherentunreliability of funding levels in block grants could undermine the continuation of childnutrition programs such as school lunch and breakfast. Local program administratorsrequire a predictable level of funding to assure orderly program planning andcontinuation of benefits for those who qualify.

2 4

21

In addition, the block grant approach is less likely to be responsive to the increased needfor assistance among needy families that might occur within a state during a given year.If there is a recession or natural disaster, states will find themselves short of resources atthe very time they most need help.

We raise particular concern about the nutrition block grant included in HR4, thePersonal Responsibility Act. The maximum funding level provided in this proposalwould require a cutback of about $5 billion in the first year of operations alone. Overtime, we fear that the reductions would grow as nutrition programs would have tocompete with other funding priorities for a shrinking pot of federal "discretional),"money.

We have had a highly successful national commitment to nutritional assistance in thiscountry. These needs cannot be met adequately through private charity or through thevarying levels of commitment that state and local governments can make.

Please save our nation's nutrition programs.

25

22

SIGNEES AS OF TUESDAY MORNING, January 31, 1995

NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

AMALGAMATED CLOTHING AND TEXTILE WORKERS UNIONAMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONSAMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORSAMERICAN CANCER SOCIETYAMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATIONAMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEESAMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIOAMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEEASSOCIATION OF STATE & TERRITORIAL PUBLIC HEALTH NUTRITION

DIRECTORSBREAD FOR THE WORLDCATHOLIC CHARITIES USACENTER FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICYCENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY PRIORITIESCOALITION ON HUMAN NEEDSCONGRESSIONAL HUNGER CENTERCOUNCIL OF JEWISH FEDERATIONSCOUNCIL OF THE GREAT CITY SCHOOLSDAIRY AND NUTRITION COUNCIL, MID EAST UNITED DAIRY INDUSTRYASSOCIATIONEND HUNGER NETWORKFOOD RESEARCH AND ACTION CENTERFOOD CHAINHADLEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL-WICJESUIT SOCIAL MINISTRIES, NATIONAL OFFICELUTHERAN OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN

CHURCH IN AMERICALUTHERAN PUBLIC POLICY ADVOCACY OFFICEMAZON: A JEWISH RESPONSE TO HUNGERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE EDUCATION OF YOUNG CHILDRENNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHILD ADVOCATESNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALSNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALSNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERSNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTSNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WIC DIRECTORSNATIONAL COALITION FOR THE HOMELESSNATIONAL CONSUMERS LEAGUENATIONAL COUNCIL OF FARMER COOPERATIVESNATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMENNATIONAL COUNCIL OF SENIOR CITIZENSNATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

26,

23

NATIONAL FARMERS UNIONNATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATIONNATIONAL STUDENT CAMPAIGN AGAINST HUNGER & HOMELESSNESSOMB WATCHPUBLIC VOICE FOR FOOD AND HEALTH POLICYRESULTSSAVE THE CHILDRENSEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICASECOND HARVESTSERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNIONUNITED AUTO WORKERSUNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNIONUNITED PLANNING ORGANIZATION-WIC PROGRAMU.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, TASK FORCE ON HUNGER ANDHOMELESSNESSWORLD HUNGER EDUCATION SERVICEWORLD HUNGER YEARYWCA OF THE USA

STATE AND LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS

ACCESS FOOD SHARE, MEDFORD, ORALABAMA COALITION AGAINST HUNGERALLEGHENY COUNTY HEALTH/MENTAL RETARDATION/DRUG AND

ALCOHOL/HOMELESS AND HUNGER PROGRAM, PITTSBURGH, PAALTO DAIRY COOPERATIVE, WAUPUN, WIAMERICAN FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES, AIKEN, SCATLANTA COMMUNITY FOOD BANKBLAIR COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM, ALTOONA, PABOULDER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT, BOULDER, COBRATTLEBORO AREA DROP-IN, BRATTLEBORO, VTBUTLER COUNTY UNITED LABOR COUNCIL, AFL-CIO, PITTSBURGH, PACALIFORNIA EMERGENCY FOODLINKCAMDEN AREA FOOD PANTRY, CAMDEN, NYCAPITAL AREA FOOD BANK, AUSTIN, TXCAPITAL DISTRICT CHILD CARE COORDINATING COUNCIL, NYCATAWBA PUBLIC HEALTH DISTRICT, ROCK HILL, SCCATHOLIC DIOCESE OF DALLAS, TEXASCATTARAUGUS COMMUNITY ACTION, INC., NYCENTER FOR FOOD ACTION, STATEWIDE EMERGENCY FOOD AND ANTI-HUNGER NETWORK, NJCHICAGO ANTI-HUNGER FEDERATIONCOALITION OF WISCONSIN AGING GROUPSCOLLEGE DEMOCRATS, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, WHTTEWATERCOLUMBIA PACIFIC FOOD BANK, ST. HELENS, ORCOMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY OF BALDWIN, ESCAMBIA, CLARKE, MONROE &

27

24

CONECUB COUNTIES, ALABAMACOMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY OF NORTH CENTRAL ALABAMA, DECATUR, ALCOMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION OFNEW JERSEYCOMMUNITY COORDINATED CHILD CARE, MILWAUKEE, WICOMMUNITY FOOD PANTRY OF CONDON, ORCOMMUNITY FOOD RESOURCE CENTER, NEW YORK, NYCOMMUNITY FOOD SHARE, BOULDER, COCOMMUNITY HEALTH CARE INC., WIC PROGRAM, WASHINGTON, D.C.COMMUNITIES IN SCHOOLS:CENTRAL TEXAS, INC.CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FOOD & NUTRITION POLICY CONSORTIUM, CAD.C. HUNGER ACTIOND.C. GENERAL HOSPITAL WIC PROGRAMDEMOCRATIC WHIP IVAN ITKIN, PA, HOUSE OF REPRESENATIVESDEPARTMENT OF NUTRITIONAL SCIENCES, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, NJEASTERN WEST VIRGINIA COMMUNITY ACTIONEDWARD C. MAZIQUE PARENT CHILD CENTER, WASHINGTON, D.C.ELMOREJAUTAUGA COMMUNITY ACTION COMMITTEE, WETUMPKA, ALEMERGENCY FAMILY ASSISTANCE ASSOCIATION, BOULDER, COFLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CITRUS, FARMINGTON, HILLS, MIFOOD BANK OF CENTRAL NEW YORKFOOD BANK OF IOWAFOOD BANK COUNCIL OF MICHIGANFOOD BANK OF NORTH ALABAMA, HUNTSVILLE, ALFOOD BANK OF NORTHERN NEVADAFOOD BANK OF WESTERN MASSACHUSETTSFOOD FOR ALL, REDLANDS, CAFOOD FOR LANE COUNTY, EUGENE, ORFOOD AND HUNGER HOTLINE, NYFOOTHILLS RURAL COMMUNITY MINISTRY, NYFOREMOST FARMS USA, COOPERATIVE, BARABOO, WIGREATER DALLAS COMMUNITY OF CHURCHESGREATER MILWAUKEE SYNOD OF THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF

AMERICA, WIGREATER PITTSBURGH COMMUNITY FOOD BANK, McKEESPORT, PAGREENE COUNTY DEPARTMENT FOR THE AGING, NYHEALTH & WELFARE COUNCIL OF NASSAU COUNTY, UNIONDALE, NYHUNGER ACTION NETWORK OF NEW YORK STATEHUNGER SERVICES NETWORK, PITTSBURGH, PAHUNGER TASK FORCE OF MILWAUKEEINTERFAITH CONFERENCE OF GREATER MILWAUKEEINTERFAITH MINISTRIES HUNGER COALITION , HOUSTON, TXINTERACT-ROTARY, SENECA, SCJEWISH COMMUNITY RELATIONS COUNCIL OF THE JEWISH FEDERATION OF

CENTRAL NEW JERSEYJEWISH LABOR COMMITTEE

28

25

JOINT COUNCIL FOR ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, NYJUST HARVEST, HOMESTEAD, PALAND O'LAKES, 'MINNEAPOLIS, MNLEGAL ACTION CENTER FOR THE HOMELESS, NYLINCOLN COUNTY FOOD SHARE, NEWPORT, ORLINN BENTON FOOD SHARE, CORVALLIS, ORLONG ISLAND CARESLOWER SAVANNAH DISTRICT, AIKEN, SCLUTHERAN OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL MINISTRY IN NEW JERSEYLUTHERAN OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL MINISTRY IN NEW MEXICOLUTHERAN PUBLIC POLICY OFFICE-WASHINGTON STATELUTHERAN OFFICE ON PUBLIC POLICY, BALTIMORE, MDLUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF MICHIGANLUTHERAN STATEWIDE ADVOCACY, ALBANY, NYMARION-POLK FOOD SHARE, SALEM, ORMARYLAND FOOD COMMITTEEMAYOR TOMMY BROWN, CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TXMEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN-DEPARTMENT OF PEDIATRICSMENOMONIE AREA BREAD FOR THE WORLD, MENOMONIE, WIMIDDLE GEORGIA COMMUNITY FOOD BANK, MACON, GAMILWAUKEE 9 TO 5 ASSOCIATION FOR WORKING WOMEN, WIMILWAUKEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT ON AGINGMILWAUKEE COUNTY LABOR COUNCIL, AFL-CIOMILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLSMISSOURI ASSOCIATION FOR SOCIAL WELFARE, HUNGER TASK FORCEMONTANA ASSOCIATION OF CHURCHESMOUNTAINEER FOOD BANK, GASSAWAY, WVNORTHERN LOUISIANA SYNOD EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH INAMERICANORTHERN TEXAS SYNOD-EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICANORTH WESTERN NEW JERSEY COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM-FOOD BANK,

PHILLIPSBURG, NINUTRITION CONSORTIUM OF NEW YORK STATENYS SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE ASSOCIATION, NYOHIO TASK FORCEOREGON FOOD BANKORGANIZED COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM, INC., TROY, ALPENNSYLVANIA ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL FOOD BANKSPENNSYLVANIA COALITION ON FOOD AND NUTRITIONPENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE ASSOCIATIONPICKENS COMMUNITY ACTION COMNITITEE, INC., CARROLLTON, ALPIEDMONT DIETETIC ASSOCIATION, SENECA, SCPITTSBURGH CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT JIM FERLOPROGRESSIVE STUDENT UNION, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, WHTTEWATERPROJECT HOSPITALITY, NYRACINE COUNTY PROJECT EMERGENCY INC., RACINE, WI

29

26

ROMNEY FOOD PANTRY, ROMNEY, WVSOUTHERN TIER FOOD BANK, NYSTATEWIDE EMERGENCY NETWORK FOR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SECURITY,NYHONORABLE JIM SCHEMEL, FORMER MAYOR OF MINNEAPOLIS, MNSENIOR GLEANERS, INC., NORTH HIGHLANDS, CASERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 585, BLAWNOX, PASILVER SPRING NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER, MILWAUKEE, WISOCIAL CONCERNS OFFICE, MILWAUKEE ARCHDIOCESESOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, MILWAUKEE, WISOUTH CAROLINA PERINATAL ASSOCIATIONSOUTHEAST ARIZONA FOOD BANK WAREHOUSESOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTALCONTROL,

DIVISION OF WOMEN & CHILDREN'S SERVICES, CHILDREN'S HEALTHSOUTH CAROLINA COMMITTEE AGAINST HUNGERS.W. OREGON COMMUNITY ACTIONSTATEWIDE LUTHERAN ADVOCACYSTATEWIDE YOUTH ADVOCACY, NYSTART SMART MILWAUKEESTATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY, RUTGERS, DEPARTMENT OFNUTRITIONAL SCIENCESSOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, MILWAUKEE, WIST. PETER CHURCH OF DELIVERANCE, AUGUST, WVSUSTAINABLE FOOD CENTERSWISS VALLEY FARMS, CO., DAVENPORT, IATEXAS ALLIANCE OF HUMAN NEEDSTREHAB CENTER COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAM, MONTROSE, PAURBAN COALITION /MINNESOTA FOOD EDUCATION AND RESOURCE CENTERVERMONT OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITYVERMONT NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATIONWASHINGTON FOOD POLICY ADVOCATESWASHINGTON LEGAL CLINIC FOR THE HOMELESSWASHINGTON STATE ANTI-HUNGER AND NUTRITION COALITIONWESTMORELAND HUMAN OPPORTUNITIES, INC., GREENSBURG, PAWEST VIRGINIA COALITION ON FOOD AND NUTRITIONWISCONSIN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICSWISCONSIN ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATORSWISCONSIN DIETETIC ASSOCIATIONWISCONSIN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION COUNCILWISCONSIN CHILD NUTRITION ALLIANCEWISCONSIN CITIZEN ACTIONWISCONSIN COUNCIL ON CHILDREN & FAMILIESWISCONSIN EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION COUNCILWISCONSIN FEDERATION OF COOPERATIVESWISCONSIN GROCERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

27

WISCONSIN MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH COALITIONWISCONSIN NUTRITION PROJECT, INC.WISCONSIN SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE ASSOCIATIONWOMEN AND POVERTY EDUCATION INITIATIVE, MILWAUKEE, WIYELLOWSTONE CONFERENCE, ANTI-HUNTER COORDINATOR, THE UNITED

METHODIST CHURCH, BILLINGS, MT

31

28

NATIONAL CHILD & ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM SPONSORS FORUMA National Child Nutrition Advocacy Network for Child Care

=MaLinda Locke, PresidentCommunity Coordinated Child CareLouisville, KY5524364358

Mark Hansen, Vice Pres/TreasurerAssociation For Child DevelopmentEast Lansing, MI517432-7200

Craig Rainier, SecretaryEdumtional Management ServicesMarysville, PA717-937-4431

Paula James, Past PresidentContra Costa Child Care CouncilConcord. CA3104764117

POARD MEMBERS

Ellen SharkeyClarendon Family Day Care, Inc.Bedford, MA617-275-2720

Jams, BurkAssociation For Children'sNutritional GrowthHumble TX713852-1756

Lucy Patterson"'Idwood Child Care Food Program

lewood. CO.4904575

Mary Ellen PrattUS. Army Community & FamilySupport CenterAlexandria, VA705425-0710

li:vne7 The Children1i dre nAtlanta, GA4018854578

Diane AdamsCommunity Coordinated Child CareMadison,608-271-918WI1

Jan Homer LanierRichmond. VA804478-9090

Toni GatlinKCMC Child Development Corp.Kansas City, MO8164744751

Dorothy WilinghamIeffemon County Child Don. CouncilBinnutgham, AL255133-1095

Rod HofstedtAdults & Children's AllianceSt. Paul MN612-481-9320

Diana AbelYtiona Awn. of Family Day Care

atZ88

Hamm Dawson -HoltCatholic Charities Food Program

. Newark, DE3024660392

BLOCK GRANT POSITION STATEMENT

The Federal Food Assistance Block Grant, contained in H.R. 4, Title V, ofthe Personal Responsibility Act, will eliminate or seriously reduce thefunding for the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). Theproposal repeals 1994 reauthorization of the National School Lunch Act of1946 and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966; reduces current funding levels,caps future appropriations, eliminates the "entitlement" status of theprogram removes all nutritional standards and gives states the authority toreshape standards as they wish. There is no mandate in H.R. 4 for statesto continue the CACFP for children enrolled family child care homes.

The National CACFP Sponsors Forum vigorously opposes any blockgrant for child nutrition programs. Any proposal to block grant theCACFP will ...,J-timately destroy this program for all children in familychild care homes.

Maintaining the "entitlement" status of the CACFP will be critical inensuring that the projected increase in "low-income" children enteringchild care can receive program benefits. As states move mothers andfathers from welfare to work, the number of "low-income" children in childcare will rise. Currently, federal funding for CACFP expands automaticallyto meet increased needs. Capped funding would prevent states from servingthe increased number of children in child care. Consequently, future growthin licensed and registered family child care will be nonexistent, creating aninsurmountable obstacle for successful welfare reform.

The food assistance block grant will undermine the family child careinfrastructure and the availability of quality, affordable child care willbe critically impacted. Currently, participation in the CACFP requiresfamily child care providers to be licensed or registered. Because the blockgrant prohibits participation of "middle-income" children, fewer providerswill participate in the CACFP and the number of providers becoming part ofa regulated or licensed profession will diminish, further eroding theavailability of quality child care. The 1994 Study of Children in FamilyChild Care and Relative Care reported that 87% of the family child carehomes considered to be providing good-quality child care participated in theCACFP. Participation in the CACFP was cited as one of the factorsinfluencing the quality of child care. CACFP participating family child careproviders have access to a wide range of training and support activities,including three monitoring and educational visits per year.

Ed CooneyFood Rescarch Aaiun CenterWashington, D.C.

ES OFFICIOBOARD

Helen Blank Kay Honored&Children's Wear Fund The asp dationWashington. D.0 wa

3 2 -

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Marion StandishCalOonda Food PolicyAdomates

31

Kansas Stale Board of Education120 S.E. 10th Avenue, fooeka. Kansas 66612.1182

December 30, 1994

Representative Pat Roberts1128 Longworth House O.B.Washington, DC 20515

Dear Representative Roberts:

The Kansas State Board of Education (KSBE) staff has reviewed the Personal Responsibility Act(PRA), the welfare reform component of the Contract with America. We are deeply concernedabout the negative impact these provisions would have on Kansas children participating in ChildNutrition Programs administered by KSBE.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently released data indicating KansasChild Nutrition Programs would receive a 43.7 percent funding cut for fiscal year 1996. Only twoother states, Delaware and North Dakota, would experience a larger percent of decrease infunding: A copy of USDA's projections is enclosed.

Child-Nutrition Programs are both nutrition and education programs; aimed at preparing allchildren to learn and lead healthy, productive lives. The PRA proposal restricts grant funds so ,only children from economically disadvantaged families would receive benefits. In 1985, theLibrary of Congress estimated that elimination of all child nutrition funding for non-poor students

would jeopardize continuation of the School Lunch Program in over 40,000 of the nation's 90,000participating schools.

In Kansas, where 61 percent of the 290,000 school lunches served daily are for'non disadvantaged* students, we project over half of participating schools and child care

..,.. facilities will drop out of the Child Nutrition Programs. This will happen because school boardsand administrators will not want to administer a welfare program. Additionally, they may feel that

. the administrative responsibilities are too great in relation to the amount of funding received.Hundreds of Kansas schools and child care facilities will probably leave the programs resulting in ..

the following:

1. Low income children will lose access to nutritious meals. Studies show that low-income_students depend on the National School Lunch Program (NSLP)- for one-third to one-half oftheir nutritional intake each day.

2. Low income students will be at greater risk for educational failure. Inadequate nutritionIs a major cause of impaired cognitive development and is associated with Increasededucational failure among impoverished children. Research has shown that children who

=--- participate in the School Breakfast Program (SBP) have significantly higher standardized..;achlevement test scores than eligible non-participants. Children eating school breakfast also

have significantly reduced abserice and tardiness rates.. .

3. ALL students will be at greater nutritional risk. USDA research demonstrates thatchildren who participate in the NSLP have superior nutritional intake compared to those whodo not. The PRA eliminates any requirements to ensure the nutritional quality of the mealsserved in schools and child care facilities.

Nutrition Services(913) 299-2276

3.5

32

Representative Pat RobertsDecember 30, 1994Page 2

4. ALL students will lose the nutrition education component of the programs. Most of theleading causes of death in America are diet related. Many of these killer diseases have theironset in childhood. Teaching children to make nutritious food choices is an economical wayto dramatically lower their future health care costs and help them lead better lives.

The Child Nutrition Programs are important to the education and health of all students. Theprograms have worked effectively and efficiently for many years. At a time when child poverty isincreasing, the PRA would terminate these proven programs and replace them with anineffective welfare program. Implementation of the PRA proposals would literally take foodfrom the mouths of children in Kansas schools and child care facilities. Surely there is a lessdamaging way to reduce government spending.

If you wish to have more specific information about the impact of these provisions on the ChildNutrition Programs in Kansas, feel free to contact Nutrition Services (913-296-2276).

Sincerely,

Lee Droegemuell r, CommissionerKansas State Board of Education

Enclosure

LD/jm

36

29

Millions of our nation's youngest children will lose the nutritional and health preventativebenefits that the CACFP meals provide. The block grant would prohibit services to childrenfrom hard working families and allow services only to those children whose families are deemedeconomically disadvantaged. According to Congress's Select Panel for the Promotion of ChildHealth, preschool children often receive 75 to 80 percent of their nutritional intake from theirchild care providers. USDA reported that children participating in the CACFP ate more nutritiousmeals than children in non-participating child care sites.

The elimination of nutrition standards will adversely affect the nutrition and health ofAmerica's youngest children. It is well documented that dietary intake is linked to many majorchronic diseases. The early childhood years are critical to a child's development as well as to theformation of lifelong eating habits. The 1994 Carnegie report Starting Points: Meeting the Needsof Our Youngest Children documents to an even greater degree on how individuals function frompreschool through adulthood "hinges, to a significant extent, on their experiences before the ageof 3." Future productivity, cognitive and social development of young children would benegatively impacted by cutting or eliminating the CACFP.

Family child care providers are small business owners and taxpayers. CACFPreimbursements received are treated as taxable income by the family child care provider. TheCACFP provides an incentive to family child care providers to become licensed or registered,thereby becoming part of our taxpaying community. The 1994 Study of Children in Family ChildCare and Relative Care found that 94% of regulated providers report their child care income ontheir tax returns. The CACFP provides economic development to these businesses, enabling themto provide quality, affordable child care to working parents. The majority of these small businessowners are low-income women who without CACFP income would be forced to increase rates tostay in child care or close their business. Parents already struggling to pay for the cost of childcare would be forced to seek lower quality, unregulated care.

The CACFP would become a discretionary program if block granted. There would be noguaranteed allocation beyond 1996. Congress could reduce or eliminate appropriations annually.States could even make the decision not to fund the program for family child care homes.

The Child and Adult Care Food Program is not a welfare program. The CACFP is anutrition, training and nutrition education program that provides long-term health andsocietal benefits to our nation's children. The CACFP provides nutritional benefits to allchildren because all children need a nutritional head start. The CACFP was started inresponse to documented problems of undemutrition in very young children of all economic levels.The relationship between nutrition and learning is well researched and documented. Studies haveconcluded that the nutritional requirements of the CACFP have made and continue to make asignificant impact in the nutritional and health status of young children. The National EducationGoals for the Year 2000 provides that all children should start school ready to learn.

The National CACFP Sponsors Forum is a non-profit organization organized in 1984 andrepresents 10,000 CACFP sponsors providing CACFP services to more than 1.8 million

children in child care centers, family child care homes and their working parents.

92-373 - 95 - 2 33

30

FMI POLICY STATEMENTON FOOD ASSISTANCE REFORM

January 1995

The Food Marketing Institute has long supported Food Stamps and WIC as effective,efficient ways of reducing hunger andimprovina the nutrition of our nation's poor. Boththese programs serve as ultimate safety nets for those who cannot afford adequate diets.In 1994, some 27 million Americans depended on food stamps as income supplements at atotal cost to the federal government of $24.5 billion. Over one-half of the beneficiarieswere children. In addition, approximately 6.5 million Americans participated in the WICprogram for this same year at a cost to the federal government of just over $3 billion.

FMI supports reforms that would improve the efficiency of food.assistance programswhile at the same time reducing any fraud and abuse that may exist. It is appropriate toscrutinize every government prograni to increase efficiency and effectiveness whereverpossible. In fact, the grocery industry already has been a major participant in the effort toconvert food stamps to an electronic .benefits transfer environment With exactly these goalsin mind.

If food assistance programs are moved to the states in block grants, with each stategiven authority to set its Gan standards for eligibility, the basic principles set forth belowwould lead to reforms that increase control. reduce fraud and abuse, enhance the dignityof the programs, and reduce both public and private administrative costs. If foodassistance programs continue to be administered at the federal level, these same principlesshould also apply.

1. Because access to food is the ultimate safety net for needy Americans, theseprograms should not be simply cashed out. Research 1c4s demonstrated thatremoving the link between program benefits and the actual purchase of foodresults in the deterioration of nutritional diets, especially for our children. Thisincreases long term health care costs dramatically and often arrests the normalgrowth and development of children.

2. FMI strongly supports a coordinated effort to reduce fraud and abuse, and toimprove efficiency by reinventing benefit delivery systems. We encourageacceleration of the timetable for completion of the government's electronicbenefits transfer proposals to speed final evaluation of this promising system asan alternative.

3. As delivery mechanisms are redesigned, national uniformity must be the goalallowing recipients to retain the freedom to shop at stores of their choice andrecognizing the regulatOry burden that multiple systems impose on grocersoperating across jurisdictional lines. It is important to recognize also thatuniformity is necessary for development of improved systems to address fraudand abuse.

4. Since access to wholesome and nutritious food in the focal comrcamity is thegoal of food assistance programs, overly restrictive licensing requirements forparticipation, particularly for the WIC program, should be eliminated. Thiswould reduce both gcrviemment and private administrative costs and improvefood access for recipients.

Adopttd by the FMI Board of Direct=January 14, 1995

3,4

ts.

oc " 0O

33

COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERSOne Idnmsdnesetnt A ...le, NW, Suite 700, Wathingtoo, DC 20001-1451 302/4084505 FAX lovas-sonResource Center on Educational Equity Store Fehmation Assessment Center

cotiNco'

Child Nutrition ProgramsCCSSO Statement & Fact Sheet

January 20, 1995

School lunch, breakfast and summer feeding programs are slated for consolidation into aS35.6 million state block grant of nutrition programs under the Personal Responsibility Act portionof the Contract with America (IIR 4). The nutrition block grant would also include WIC, foodstamps and a number of other programs. The provisions of the proposal as introduced would includeelimination of the federal subsidy for children who pay for their lunches, a change in the funding ofall programs included in the block grant from entitlements based on the number of eligibleparticipants to a single annual appropriation, and phased-in state flexibility to permit the governor toshill bads from one nutrition program from another without assurance that school meal programswould be maintained at even their current levels over five years.

CCSSO strongly supports the school meal programs and urges that school -basednutrition programs be dropped from the welfare reform block grant for the following reasons:

School meal programs are not "welfare" programs. The federal subsidies for schoolbuirbs, in cash and in commodities, arc based on a long-standing national priority onassuring that public schools in America can offer nutritious, affordable meals to all children.While the degree of federal subsidy varies with the affluence of the child, the program is notdesigned to serve only children in poverty. The program makes the difference in whethermany school districts can offer meals to students during the school day.

School meal programs should retain entitlement status. Making funding subject to theannual appropriations process would undermine and jeopardize the program, particularly sincethe block grant proposal does not include hold harmless provisions, pia i.t.n.nr, of effort,or earmarks within the block at current levels for each program. As the appropriated pot offunds shrinks in relation to eligible participants in the various nutrition programs, one needand population will invariably be pitted against another at the state level.

The subsidies for the paying child should be maintained. Elimination of these subsidieswould force those school districts that have fewer poor students to drop their school lunchprograms altogether.

School meal programs should continue to be the responsibility of and administered bystate and local education agencies. School meals should not be pitted against other vitalchild nutrition and poverty feeding programs for funds, nor should responsibility for them beshined to the governor's office.

Pm/Sag JUD/TH A. BILLINGS. %Amps. Soperimeadcas Pohlte IIMUISCalle Pyvablest ED.'S TED SANDERS. Oho, Soperimeodent at Public DilemmasVka Redden ALAN D. MORGAN. Hr. Sfouce Supamosslan of Mlle Inavoies !Simeon ROBERT Y. AJOUNUCX1. Sfasuchuoms Comnsasisaw of &bud= /OKRA.

BOHAN/TO. Scud, Dam Sernsus d kdecabon ROB iL CDODUDGE, Non Carobs Suserksentos, at Poblk Inanolon HENRT R. MAILOOKIE W o VITS., &WARW..ofSchuslis WRJJAH T. itAmsnu- Colones. Ceennessicon of Remo:Ion THOMAS SOBOL Nov Yu* C..mkenner of Penmen Esecati Moser GORDON M.AMnA01

37

34

THURSDAY

January 19, 1995

HOW YOU CAN HELPIf you have food you are

willing to contribute, take It tothe Kansas FoodbankWarehouse or to your localfood pantry or church.

Catholic Charities needsbaby formula, frozen meatsand certificates for milk', eggsand other grocery Items.

Donations can be mailed tothe Wichita Ministerial league,Grant Chapel AME Church.2750 N. Hillside, to provideemergency help.

Hold a -Souper BowlSunday- party.,During theparty, pass around a collectionplate and donate the proceedsto the food bank or homelessshelter of your choice.

Contact the Campaign toEnd Childhood Hunger atInter-Faith Ministries(264-9303) to see whatassistance Is needed in theprogram's public awarenessand food supplement outreachprograms.

Adopt one of the schoolswithin the Cities and Schoolsprogram; contact Judy Frick,the program's city coordinator,at 833-5110.

.Volunteer to remodel homeswith Mennonite HousingRehabilitation Services.

Volunteer to teach literacyto children or adults throughLiteracy Volunteers ofAmerica or the Cities andSchools program.

car Wichita Earh

Hungrykids cryfor- helpBy Stan FingerThe Wichita Eagle

In a school where nearly 90percent of the students re-ceive reduced-price lunchesand where hunger had re-duced a student to tears justthat morning, sponsors of acomprehensive study on child-hood hunger Wednesday is-sued a cry for help.

The two-year survey con-ducted by the Kansas Child-hood Hunger IdentificationProject revealed that 21,000children under the age of 12go hungry in a givea month,and-another 48,000 are at riskof going hungry about oneout of every seven children inthe state.

"We found hunger in everyarea of the state," CherylWehler, a researcher with theChildhood Hunger Identifica-tion Project, said during anews conference at ColvinGrade School, 2820 S. Roose-velt "Where you found pover-ty, you found hunger."

Based on personal inter-views with 609 low-incomefamilies selected at randomfrom 29 counties throughoutKansas, the survey estimatedthat l' out of every 22 childrenIn Kansas is hungry.

"For every single school inKansas ... there is a hungrychild in every classroom,"Wehler said.

See HUNGER, Page 4D.

38

35

HUNGERFrom Page ID

Students were classified "hungry' Iftheir families answered yes to at leastfive , I eight questions that explored spe-cific measures of hunger. Those whoanswered yes to one to four questionswere considered at risk.

In Wichita, 5,000 children are hungryabout 1 In 14 and about one out of

every five children Is either hungry or atrisk, the survey showed.

"Hungry children can't learn," saidRita Hannan,' a Kansas state. nutrition-ist Illiterate adults can't compete."

rTrish Peters, assistant principal at Col-vin Grade School. said a child walkedInto the school, office crying Wednesdaymorning. She wanted something to eat.

Peters fed the child crackers and gaveher something to drink. The child wentback to class and was fine.

Peters said she watches children Inthe school lunchroom refill their platesagain and again.

-There's not going to be much fordlnnrr that night, and they'll tell you, sothey're loading up." said Peters, whosevoice filled with emotion as her presen-tation proceeded.

The school lunch and school breakfastprograms are Important safety nets forchildren whose families struggle to putfood on the table. According to the FoodResearch and Action Center, the numberof children receiving food stamps InKansas grew from 82,603 In fiscal year1991 to 92,965 in fiscal year 1993.

Those numbers should be even higher,authors of the survey said. Researchfound that more than one-third of the at-risk households eligible for food stampsdo not receive them.

After the conference, the Rev. EugeneGerber, bishop of the Catholic Diocese ofWichita, said the survey results should"make us students of the children. Thelesson we learn must result In action."

Virginia White, executive director ofthe Kansas Foodbank Warehousewhich spearheaded the project alongwith Inter -Faith. Ministries said sheplanned to meet with Gov. Bill Gravestoday to review the surveys results.

White said.she would urge Graves toform a task force to study the survey's

Virginia White, executive director of theKansas Foodbank Warehouse, plans to urgeGov. Bill Graves to form a task force to studythe hunger survey's results and developstrategies to reduce hunger in Kansas duringa meeting today with the governor to reviewthe survey's results.

results and develop strategies to reducehunger in Kansas. . - .

Those strategies cool be heavily af-fected by what happens in Washington, .D.C. In the weeks ahead, Congress Ls:,expected to consider a number of poten:tiarchanget In federal food subsidy pro-grams, many of which could mean sigdficant reductions. th . funding forprograms such as food stamps, schoollunch programs, school breakfast pro-

and the special supplementalgrfd7. program for. women,. infants, andchildren (WIC). .

U those cuts are made, said Inter-Faith Ministries director Sam Muyskens,"I would hate to think how much hungerthere would be in the heartland."

Muyskens, Gerber and others all saidthey would support effort to maintainfood supplement programs at currentlevels.

"It's not uncommon for the poor to becut first .

st. in expenditures, and to par.

tidpate last recovery," Gerber said"We need to take their side. We need tobe their voice, especially for the chil-dren"

Sitting In the front row of the gradeschool gymnasium, Shelly Turneytened quietly to the presentations. Whatshe. was hearing did not surprise her.She participated In the survey, andknows about making do with a Job thatdoesn't stretch far enough and foodstamps that do not last to the end of themonth and children going hungry.

She has three children of her own anddrives a school bus In some of Wichita'spoorest neighborhoods She tries to havea little something for the students whoride her bus, because so many of themare hungry when they climb up the hasstep's

"How do I manage that? I don't eat,"

she said. "I figure It's more Importantfor the kids to eat than_ for me to. ". .

Tmney is trying to find tight at .the.ced of the tunnel for herself. ...

..It's a long, long tunnel," she said.,:earlier this week.:: Shuts beginning .work toward a rd,"Mee degree this semester, taking coursesat Butler County Community College oafFridays, Saturdays and Sundays so she,won't have to. give up her job.

"How are we going to get the moneyfor you to go to college?" her 9-yearoldson Troy asked when has mother men -honed the classes.

"A grant," she said "It's been takencare of.".

But the Pell Grant Is a double-edgedsword. While It will pay for her collegecomes, she said, it will count against theearnings figure used to calculate herfederal assistance.'That means she will have to do even

more of what she typically does whenthe money runs out before the monthdome scrounge up odd jobs, and giveplasma twice a week.

Donating plasma gives her bread, milkand gas money, but she doesn't like to doIt "because It leaves ugly San." shesaid.

On Wednesday morning, as she pon-dered the loss of federal assistance be-cause of the school grant, Turney talkedabout having to give plasma again.

But by that afternoon, people who hadread or heard of her plight had offeredso muck food and clothing that she wasasking people to send their food to theKansas Foodbank Warehouse or the pan-try or church of their choice.

"Cm sure there's people worse offthan me," she said .

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

39

36

Chairman GOODLING. Thank you.Dr. Lukefahr.

STATEMENT OF JAMES L. LUKEFAHR, MEDICAL DIRECTOR,DRISCOLL CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL WIC PROGRAM

Dr. LUKEFAHR. Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, asChairman Good ling pointed out, I am a practicing pediatrician andalso I am medical director of the Driscoll Children's Hospital WICprogram in Corpus Christi, Texas. I do not receive any financial re-muneration for my position with the WIC program, but I am happyto serve in this capacity because the program allows me to treatmy patients so much more effectively.

Thank you for allowing me to testify concerning the importanceof the WIC program to the health of the mothers and the childrenthat I and my physician colleagues treat every day.

From its inception, the WIC program has served a different pur-pose than other food services such as food stamps or the schoollunch program. The WIC program is really not a food handout pro-gram. Instead, qualified health professionals, usually nutritionistsand nurses, are empowered to identify women and children whoare at risk for serious nutritional deficiencies.

These professionals then intervene to prevent those deficienciesthrough a provision of nutritious foods specific to the needs of theclient, infant formula, education, monitoring of growth and otherhealth indicators, and referral to other health care providers.

A woman or a child does not receive WIC services merely bybeing poor. The individual must meet the income requirement andhave a nutritional risk.

WIC's program of tightly integrated services promoted to preven-tive health has generated impressive savings in health care costsas shown by the following example, which Mr. Fersh alluded to.The risk of premature birth is much higher for nutritionally defi-cient women, and the care of pre-term infants is one of the mostcostly forms of modern health care.

Average medical care costs incurred by one very low-birth-weightinfant, which is an infant that weighs less than three pounds, fiveounces at birth, range from $12,000 to $15,000. Since a pregnantwoman's participation in WIC reduces the likelihood of bearing abelow-birth-weight infant by 27 percent, each dollar has saved be-tween $1.92 and $4.21 just in pregnancy and Medicaid costs.

The 1990 Federal WIC expenditures of $296 million saved atleast $853 million in health expenditures to treat prematurity andits related problems.

WIC provides all these services with a minimum number of per-sonnel. A typical WIC program site is staffed about a nutritionist,a nurse, and support personnel. For example, in Texas, the averageWIC program has two workers per 1,000 clients.

In addition to being a low-cost provider of service, WIC has beena leader in developing novel ways of stretching the taxpayers' dol-lars. For example, all States have a competitive bid infant formularebate program in which infant formula makers return funds toState WIC programs in proportion to the number of enrollees whoreceive the formula.

40

37

In 1994, this process generated $1.1 billion in rebate revenue, al-lowing the enrollment of 1.5 million additional clients. In my homeState, Texas, formula rebates presently generate about 25 percentof the WIC budget.

Title V of H.R. 4 would actually repeal the authorization for thiscompetitive bid process.

Precisely because WIC differs so fundamentally from other foodassistance programs affected by Title V, I am very concerned aboutthis bill's impact on WIC and its achievements.

Under this bill, there is no guarantee that WIC's integratedpackage of services would continue. The mere fact that WIC pro-vides formula and extra food does not explain its extraordinary suc-cess. Rather, that success lies with its unique combination of pre-ventive health service.

No uniform guidelines or standards regulating the assistance ineducation are included in the bill. A State would therefore be freeto dismantle a proven, carefully crafted package of services in favorof a much simpler scheme providing only food distribution andbasic nutrition information.

Please bear in mind that WIC funding totals only one eighth thatof food stamps and only about 40 percent of the school lunch andrelated programs. Also, WIC's administrative costs could probablynot be reduced to the bill's mandate of 5 percent without strippingmany health care professionals from its ranks and eliminating thepreventive services that WIC provides.

I believe that in order to salvage even a minimal aid package forwomen and children while continuing to fund the larger programs,money strapped States would be forced to fire most WIC dieticiansand nurses and scrap the health components.

Please remember that WIC is a successful development in Ameri-ca's most important capital, its children and families. We knowthat investment in WIC reduces government expenses. If we reduceinvestment in WIC, in the end we will spend more taxpayer money,not less.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, I askthat you reconsider H.R. 4's block grant funding provisions. Pleasepreserve WIC's highly effective package of uniform standards ofservices, close cooperation with health care providers, and prescrip-tion food packages to meet nutritional needs of the women andchildren that I and my colleagues see every day.

Thank you.[The prepared statement of Dr. Lukefahr follows:]

41

38

STATEMENT OF

JAMES L. LUKEFAHR, MDMEDICAL DIRECTOR

DRISCOLL CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL WIC PROGRAMCORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIESUNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 19959:30 A.M., 2175 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

My name is James L. Lukefahr, MD. I have been a practicing pediatrician for 14 years andcurrently am director of the outpatient clinics of Driscoll Children's Hospital in Corpus Christi,Texas. I am also medical director of the Driscoll Children's Hospital WIC Program, whichserves a large, rural area of South Texas in addition to our hospital patients. Our WIC Programis unusual in that it serves a large number of children with serious medical conditions by virtueof its hospital affiliation. I do not receive any financial remuneration for my position with theWIC Program, but I am happy to serve in this capacity because the program permits me to treatmy patients much more effectively.

Thank you for allowing me to testify concerning the importance of the WIC Program to thehealth of our nation's mothers and children, and to the cost-effectiveness of this program'sprovision of services. My statement will be divided into two parts. First, I will discuss theprogram's purpose, function, and effectiveness, and show that WIC is distinct in several criticalaspects from other Federal food assistance programs. I will conclude by offering a professionalopinion on the probable impact of Title V of House Bill 4 on the continued operation ofWIC.

2

39

A. The Purpose, Function and Effectiveness of the WIC Program.

1. Congress has carefully defined the activities of the WIC Program. The SpecialSupplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children, generally known as the WIC (for"Women, Infants, and Children") Program, was authorized by Public Law 92-433 (1972) andbegan operations in 1974. Further refinement of WIC's mission occurred under PL 94-105(1975) and PL 95-627 (1978).

From its inception, the WIC Program was designed to serve a distinctly different purpose thanwere other supplemental food services such as Food Stamps or the School Lunch Program. Thatpurpose, as stated in PL 94-105, is:

.. to provide supplemental nutritious food as an adjunct to good health care duringsuch critical times of growth and development in order to prevent the occurrence ofhealth problems.... (S)upplemental foods will be made available to pregnant or lactatingwomen and infants determined by competent professionals to be nutritional risks becauseof inadequate nutrition and inadequate income, in order to improve their health status."

PL 95-627 includes the following under its definition of "nutritional risk":

"detrimental or abnormal nutritional conditions detectable by biochemical oranthropometric measurements"; .

"other documented nutritionally related medical conditions";"dietary conditions that impair or endanger health"; and"conditions that predispose persons to inadequate nutritional patterns... including butnot limited to alcoholism and drug addiction."

2. Thus, WIC is not and has never been a "food handout" program. Instead, qualified healthprofessionals (usually nutritionists and nurses) are empowered to identify women and childrenwho are at risk for serious nutritional deficiencies. These professionals then intervene to corrector prevent those deficiencies through provision of nutritious foods, infant formula, education,and other forms of assistance.

3. WIC is not welfare. Families can earn up to 185% of the Federal poverty level and stillreceive WIC services. In Texas, for example, a family of four earning $27,380 is WIC-eligible.In fact, 69% of Texas WIC families are working families; only 23% receive AFDC.'

4. WIC is not an entitlement program. As noted in the excerpts from the enabling legislation,a woman or a child does not receive WIC services merely by being poor. The individual mustmeet the income requirement and have a nutritional risk as defined in the program's guidelines.When a woman or her child is no longer at nutritional risk, she or he ceases to receive thoseservices.

3

UST COPY AVAILABLE 43

40

5. WIC is a program of tightly integrated services devoted to preventive health. The coststo society and to government imposed by nutrition-related disease in women and children areimmense. WIC's combination of specific food supplements (a health professional, not theparticipant, determines the type of food a participant receives based on his/her nutritional need),nutrition education, and close links to health-care providers has generated impressive savings inhealth care and other costs, as shown by the following well-documented examples:

The risk of premature birth is much higher for nutritionally deficient women, and the careof preterm infants is one of the most costly forms of modem health care. Average medicalcosts incurred by one very-low-birthweight infant (defined as an infant weighing less than1500 grams or 3 lb. 5 oz.) range from $12000 to $15000. A pregnant woman's participationin WIC reduces the likelihood of bearing a very-low-birthweight infant by at least 27%, andforty-nine states have reported reduced neonatal (infants 28 days ofage or less) mortalityamong WIC participants.2 Several sources have estimated that each dollar spent on WICservices has saved between $1.92 and $4.21 in pregnancy- and neonate- related Medicaidcosts.3 The General Accounting Office estimates that the 1990 federal WIC expenditures of$296 million saved $853 million in health expenditures to treat prematurity and its relatedproblems during the first year of life.4

In some ways an even more dramatic example of the impact of WIC is the near-eradicationof childhood iron-deficiency anemia. Once very prevalent in the United States, irondeficiency has been linked to impaired intellectual and motor development and to behaviorproblems such as hyperactivity.5 The primary cause of childhood iron deficiency was the useof whole cow's milk (which has virtually no iron content) in early infancy because ofamother's choice not to breastfeed and/or inability to afford infant formula for her child. By1986, several states and cities were reporting unprecedented (threefold or better) declines inchildhood iron-deficiency anemia, and these declines were directly attributable to highparticipation in WIC.6'7 Although I have not seen documentation of the cost savings due tothis dramatic decline in iron deficiency, substantial savings due to decreased hospitalizationand blood transfusion, plus reduced utilization of special education services, are plausible. IfWIC services were ever substantially curtailed, there is no doubt that iron-deficiency anemiawould rapidly return as a major public health problem due to the high cost of infant formula

for many families.

6. WIC encourages responsible health choices. Even those people who understand WIC'score activities are often unaware of the full scope of WIC's activities in promoting healthfullifestyles among its participants. Examples of these activities include:

At least two nutrition education sessions are given to each participant within each six monthcertification period. These sessions cover the nutritional needs of women and children, howto shop for nutritious foods, and preparation of healthful meals.WIC professionals emphasize the importance of regular medical and dental care, andregularly refer clients to health-care providers.

4

44

41

Vigorous efforts to increase breastfeeding rates are underway in many areas. The DriscollHospital WIC Program, for instance, has tripled the prevalence of breastfeeding among itsclients in the past two years.8WIC Programs in Texas and other states also provide on-site childhood immunizations.

7. WIC provides these services with a minimum number of personnel. A typical WICProgram site is staffed by a nutritionist (dietitian), a nurse, and support personnel. The DriscollHospital WIC Program, for example, employs three dietitians, two nurses, and eight clericalworkers (paid at or near minimum wage) to serve 3600 clients per month using two permanentsites and a mobile unit. The average ratio for all Texas WIC programs is only two workers per1000 clients.9

8. WIC has low administrative costs. For a program that employs a large number of health-care professionals, WIC devotes a surprisingly small portion of its budget to administrative costs.In Fiscal Year 1993 for example, Federal outlays for WIC totalled $2,821,855,868, of which9.6% was devoted to administrative costs.

These expenses are categorized as follows:

PURPOSE EXPENSE PERCENT

Food purchases for distribution to participants $2,114,708,519 75.0

Participant benefits 435,426,525 15.4

Nutrition Education 142,348,806 5.0

Breastfeeding Services 23,575,091 0.9

Other Direct Client Services 269,502,628 9.5

General Administration 271,720,824 9.6

Total $2,821,855,868 100.0

9. WIC saves taxpayer money in innovative ways. In addition to being a low-cost provider ofservices, WIC has been a leader in developing novel ways of stretching the taxpayers' dollars:

WIC is a model of cooperation with other organizations. Public health departments, HeadStart programs, hospitals, and even schools or churches can become local WIC agencies.This allows maximum flexibility in the use of local resources such as space and personnel.Local WIC programs often co-locate with other social service agencies--again allowingmaximum efficiency in sharing resources.Most states have a formula rebate program, in which infant-formula makers return funds tostate WIC programs in proportion to the number of enrollees who receive the formula. Thesefunds are in turn used to allow provision of service to more participants. Statewide infantformula contracts are awarded by competitive bidding processes which maximize the amountof these rebates. In 1994, this process generated $1.1 billion in rebate revenue, allowing theenrollment of 1.5 million additional clients."

5

45

42

B. The Likely Impact of Reduced or Unrestricted Block Grant Funding on the WICProgram.

As indicated in the previous section, WIC differs from other Federal food assistance programs infundamental ways:

WIC is a preventive-health program consisting of a tightly integrated package ofpredetermined food assistance, nutrition education, and direct links to health care.WIC is not a welfare or entitlement program. Food and infant formulaare dispensed only toclients who pass a dual test of income and nutritional risk, and only in conjunction with aprogram of nutrition education and health monitoring.WIC is already highly cost-effective with a proven track record of saving tax dollars and lowadministrative costs.

Title V of HR 4, the Personal Responsibility Act, proposes lumping funding for all USDA foodassistance programs into a single block grant to each state. The bill would also reduce overallfunding by 13% the first year and would remove nearly all Federal guidelines attached to foodassistance funds. Further, eligibility for WIC would change from 185% of the Federal povertylevel to the "lower living standard income level," (reducing the number of eligible workingfamilies) and funding for administrative costs'would be capped at 5 %.I2

Precisely because WIC differs s6 fundamentally from all the other food assistance programsaffected by this bill, I am very concerned about the potential impact on WIC and itsachievements. Under this bill, there is no guarantee that WIC's integrated package ofservices would continue. The mere fact that WIC provides formula and extra food does notexplain its extraordinary success; rather, that success lies with the unique combination ofpreventive-health services. The only meaningful step that HR 4 takes to preserve WIC is aprovision which states that at least 12 percent of the block grant funds support food assistanceand nutrition education for women, infants, and children. No uniform guidelines or standardsregulating that assistance and education are included in the bill. A state would therefore be freeto dismantle a proven, carefully crafted package of services in favor of a much simpler schemeproviding only food distribution and basic education. Without uniform national levels of qualityassurance, there would be no way of determining if the money was being spent effectively.Without national standards, the 12% set-aside for WIC in the proposed legislation would notpreserve this multifaceted and effective program.

Some observers may argue that states would not move to dismantle WIC, since stategovernments would also recognize the singular nature of WIC and fund it accordingly. Theseobservers should bear in mind that WIC funding totals only 1/8 that of the Food Stamps programand only about 40% of the School Lunch and related programs. Also, WIC's administrativecosts could probably not be reduced to 5% without stripping many health-care professionals fromits ranks and eliminating the preventive services WIC provides. I believe that, in order to salvageeven a minimal aid package for women and children while continuing to fund the larger

6

46

43

programs, money-strapped states would be forced to fire most WIC dietitians and nurses andscrap WIC's preventive-health components.

This scenario seems particularly likely to me in view of the bill's proposed massive funding cuts.HR 4 would reduce overall 1996 funding from $40.7 billion to $35.6 billion (a 12.7%difference).13 With an abrupt funding cut of that magnitude, there is no chance that any of theinvolved programs would survive without a major downsizing of services.

Although "downsizing of services" is the order of the day in Washington, please remember thatto downsize WIC is to diminish a major investment in America's most important capital--itschildren and families. We all regard as foolish the businessman who does not invest enough inhis firm's capital resources, because we know that such a decision will inevitably result in lessprofit in the long term. The situation is precisely the same with WIC: we know that investmentin WIC reduces government expenses. Conversely, when we reduce investment in WIC, in theend we will spend more taxpayer money, not less.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, please reconsider HR 4's impact uponthe quality and integrity of this program. I ask that you instead preserve specified funding of thevarious food assistance programs (particularly the WIC Program) at or near their current levels,and to continue your support of WIC's highly productive package of services. If you feel thatyou must pursue block-grant funding, I ask you to preserve the current level of funding, whichwould at least make feasible the preservation at the state level of WIC services.

References

1. Data provided by Texas Association of Local WIC Directors

2. Infant Mortality Among Medicaid Newborns in Five States: The Effect of Prenatal WICParticipation. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 1993

3. The Savings in Medicaid Costs for Newborns and their Mothers from Prenatal Participationin the WIC Program. US Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, October 1990

4. Federal Investments Like WIC Can Produce Savings. General Accounting Office, 1992

5. Frank A. Oski, MD, Iron Deficiency in Infancy and Childhood. New England Journal ofMedicine vol. 329 no. 3, July 15, 1993

6. Pablo Vazquez-Seaone, MD, et al, Disappearance of Iron-Deficiency Anemia in a High-RiskInfant Population Given Supplemental Iron, New England Journal of Medicine vol. 313 no. 19,November 7, 1985

7

4 7

44

7. Centers for Disease Control, Declining Anemia Prevalence among Children Enrolled inPublic Nutrition and Health Programs -- Selected States, 1975-1985, Morbidity and MortalityWeekly Report vol. 35 no. 36, September 12, 1986

8. James L. Lukefahr, MD, et al, The Effect of Peer Counselors on the Prevalence ofBreastfeeding, unpublished manuscript

9. Data provided by Texas Association of Local WIC Directors

10. Data provided by National Association of WIC Directors

11. Ibid

12. The Nutrition, Health, and Economic Consequences of Block Grants for Federal FoodAssistance Programs. US Department of Agriculture Food and Consumer Service, January 17,1995

13. Ibid

48

8

45

Chairman GOODLING. Thank you.Mr. Boehlje.

STATEMENT OF BOYD W. BOEHLJE, PRESIDENT, PELLA IOWASCHOOL BOARD, PELLA SCHOOL DISTRICT

Mr. BOEHLJE. Thank you, and good morning.My name is Boyd Boehlje and I am a local school board member

from Pella, Iowa. I am also President of the National School BoardsAssociation which represents over 95,000 local school board mem-bers across the country who make the key policy and fiscal deci-sions for local school districts.

Like most school board members, I serve as a school board mem-ber in addition to my full-time professional responsibilities as anattorney in a small rural practice. Overwhelmingly, school boardmembers are democratically elected and serve without financialcompensation as I do.

Today I would like to give you a little bit of our perspective onthe proposal in H.R. 4 to consolidate the school lunch and otherschool nutrition programs.

Let me describe briefly the school lunch program, which is thelargest of the school nutrition programs. On an average school day,approximately 25 million children receive lunches through the pro-gram and about 95 percent of the public schools participate in thisprogram. Participating schools receive payments partially subsidiz-ing each meal served and they may also receive donated food fromUSDA.

These schools offer free and reduced price lunches to eligible chil-dren and provide meals that meet dietary guidelines. The logic ofschool nutrition programs is that these programs help low-incomechildren learn.

If a child is hungry or undernourished, the child is not only morelikely to become sick but less likely to succeed in school. Servingthese meals in school rather than at a different location providesanother reason for many poor, at-risk children to attend classesregularly.

Let me add that the effects of poor nutrition is pretty well docu-mented. A recent Tufts University report concluded that poor chil-dren who attend school hungry perform significantly below theirnon-hungry low-income peers on standardized tests.

For all these reasons, I think it is particularly valuable to keepthese school programs out of a larger block grant. But my greatestconcern about the proposal before the committee is its impact onthe numbers of children who receive meals through the program.Based on my experiences at home in Pella and my knowledge ofother school districts, I believe that H.R. 4 as currently drafted willnot help America's school children but indeed it is very likely tohurt them.

Unless the committee modifies H.R. 4, the legislation will almostcertainly mean that this program will not be able to provide mil-lions of school children with nutritious meals.

At the national level, I estimate that, as drafted, H.R. 4 wouldresult in cuts of approximately 17 percent in the school nutritionprograms. I know that many communities I am familiar with inIowa, the cuts in this range are even higher.

49

46

Many communities in Iowa and across the Nation are likely todrop their participation in school nutrition programs. This wouldmean that all of the economically disadvantaged children would belikely to lose benefits of free or reduced price school meals.

For these reasons, I urge the committee to modify H.R. 4 by tak-ing the school programs out of the larger block grant.

Under the current law, the school nutrition program contains im-portant safeguards to help ensure all eligible children are served.However, the Personal Responsibility Act contains no such safe-guards. The legislation ends the insurance that schools would atleast be partially reimbursed for each meal that is provided forschool children.

The PRA as drafted converts the school lunch and other schoolnutrition programs from entitlements into a multi-program nutri-tional block grant subject to the annual appropriations process.Thus, adequate funding will be subject to the change in politicalwhims as well as the enormous budgetary pressures on domesticdiscretionary spending. There is no guarantee that next year Con-gress would not feel forced to make reductions in these valuableprograms.

Thus, if H.R. 4 is enacted into law without modification, theavailability of these programs to ensure that children are wellnourished and ready to learn is likely to be seriously undermined.

Since 95 percent of the public schools in this Nation participatein this program, these cutbacks will be felt in almost every commu-nity across the country. And I would like to make it clear that itwill not only be the low-income urban school children that will suf-fer. As I mentioned before, I am a local board member from Iowa.And my hometown of Pella, and indeed in many suburban andrural districts across the country, this proposal, contained in PRA,is likely to have severe impact, and what impacts will these fund-ing reductions likely have?

As a result of the changes in the PRA, other school districtsacross the country will have two choices. We can either dramati-cally increase the prices for meals and in many districts the schoolwould have to increase the price of lunch by more than 50 percent.This price increase would cause many students to drop out of theprogram. They would be priced out of the system.

If enough schools start participating, then the schools would findthemselves in the position of having a prohibitively expensive costto continue the program and would cease participating. The resultis that the poor students in these districts would lose the oppor-tunity to have nutritious meals.

The other way a school district can make up for the loss of Fed-eral funding would be to finance more of the cost of the meal pro-gram through its own resources. I know firsthand from my workin Pella and my work with local school board members, the localfunds are scarce. We are all fighting the balancing act that everylocal governmental agency has to fight in balancing the resourcesyou have to allocate.

In fact, many local school boards have had local bond issuesvoted down by the taxpayers and in most districts the money justisn't there to make up for the Federal cutbacks in Federal nutritionprograms.

30

47

In other cases, the additional local funds could be made availableto make up for the loss of Federal funds. However, this is going torequire local boards and superintendents to divert desperatelyneeded funds from core academic programs to finance the schoollunch program. Shifting resources to meeting nutritional needs ofour students has the adverse effect of harming the academic pro-gramming.

I would also like to offer a word of strong caution concerning theentitlement status of other nutritional programs such as WIC andfood stamps. In the last 30 years we have made, many gains in re-ducing hunger among American children and it would be tragic ifwe were to endanger the progress that we have already made.

So I urge the committee to avoid the block granting these othervaluable nutritional programs unless you are certain that thechanges will not endanger children's health and their readiness tolearn.

I would like to conclude by reminding the committee Membersthat the block grant proposal in H.R. 4 will produce real cuts inschool nutrition programs. It will impact schools in all commu-nities, including your own community. It is going to impact on thechildren who are going to school and learning their lessons in orderto better themselves.

So block granting school nutrition programs will harm the chil-dren whom you are trying to help through improving the welfaresystem. And of course taking the school nutrition programs out ofthe larger block grant would do nothing to prevent the committeefrom proceeding with significant welfare reform.

I would like to thank the Members of this committee for this op-portunity to testify. I would be happy to work with the Membersof the committee as well as staff to provide you with additional in-formation.

Thank you.[The prepared statement of Mr. Boehlje follows:]

51

48

Boyd W. BoehljeSchool Board Member

Pella, Iowaand

PresidentNational School Boards Association

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION Page 1

II. SCHOOL NUTRITION PROGRAMS Page 1

DI CONCLUSION Page 6

52

49

I. INTRODUCTION

Good morning. My name is Boyd Boehlje, and I am a local school board member from

Pella, Iowa. I am also President of the National School Boards Association which

represents the over 95,000 local school board members across the country who make the

key fiscal and policy decisions for school districts.

Like most local school board members I serve as a board member in addition to my

full-time professional responsibilities. Overwhelmingly, local school board members

are democratically elected and serve without financial compensation as I do myself.

Today I will be reporting to you my perspective on the proposal in H.R. 4 to

consolidate the School Lunch and the other school nutrition programs.

IL SCHOOL NUTRITION PROGRAMS

The Congress and the American people appear committed to undertaking some type of

major welfare reform. The American people also clearly want to reduce federal

spending and make government more efficient. But does this mean we should rush

into undertaking a major change in the school nutrition programs? I don't think so.

Based on my experiences in Pella and my knowledge of other school districts, I believe

H.R. 4 as currently drafted will not help America's school children indeed it is likely

to hurt them. And I do not believe that the American people or the Congress wants to

make government smaller by reducing schoolchildren's opportunities to receive

nutritious meals. In fact, the current proposal to consolidate these programs runs a

great risk of endangering the health and educational opportunities of America's school

children. For this reason, I urge the Committee to modify H.R. 4 by taking the school

programs out of the nutrition block grant. Of course, such a stepwould do nothing to

prevent the Committee from proceeding with significant welfare reform.

- 1 -

E3EST COPY AVAILABLE

53

50

But first let me briefly describe the School Lunch Program, the largest of the school

nutrition programs. On an average school day 25 million children receive lunches

through the program. And about 95% of the public schools participate in the program.

Participating schools receive payments partially subsidizing each meal served and they

may also receive donated food from USDA. These schools offer free and reduced price

lunches to eligible children and provide meals that meet dietary guidelines.

The logic of school nutrition programs is that these programs help low-income children

learn. If a child is hungry or undernourished the child is not only more likely to

become sick but is less likely to succeed at school. I also like to think that providing

these meals at school, rather than at a different location, provides another reason for

many poor, at-risk children to continue to attend classes regularly. The effects of poor

nutrition are well documented. A recent Tufts University Center on Hunger, Poverty,

and Nutrition Policy statement on "The Link Between Nutrition and Cognitive

Development in Children" concluded that "poor children who attend school hungry

perform significantly below non-hungry low income peers on standardized tests." For

all these reasons, I think it is particularly valuable to maintain the distinct character of

these programs and to keep these programs out of the larger nutrition block grant.

But my greatest concern about the proposal before the Committee is its impact on the

numbers of children who benefit from the program. Unless this Committee modifies

H.R 4 the legislation will almost certainly mean that this program will not be able to

provide millions of school children with the nutritious meals they need. At the national

level we estimate that as drafted H.R 4 would result in cuts of approximately 17

percent. And I know that in many communities I am familiar with in Iowa the cuts

would be in this range or even higher. Some communities are likely to drop their

participation in the school nutrition program entirely meaning that all of the

economically disadvantaged children would lose the benefits of free or reduced-price

school meals.

- 2 -

54

51

Under current law the school nutrition program contains important safeguards to help

insure that all eligible children are served. Schools receive automatic partial

reimbursement from the federal government for all the school meals they serve.

However, the PRA contains no such safeguard. The legislation ends this insurance that

schools will be at least partially reimbursed for each meal that is provided for

schoolchildren.

The PRA as drafted converts the School Lunch and the other school nutrition programs

from entitlements into a multi-program nutrition block grant subject to the annual

appropriations process. Thus, adequate funding will be subject to the changing

political winds as well as the enormous budgetary pressures on domestic discretionary

spending. There is no guarantee that next year the Congress would not feel forced to

make deep reductions in these valuable programs. Thus if H.R 4 is enacted into law

without modification the ability of these programs to insure that children are well

nourished and ready to learn is likely to be seriously undermined.

Several other specifics of the PRA cause me great concern;

1) In FY 96 the PRA allows a maximum of $35.6 billion for the new nutrition block

grant. As little as 20% of each state's grant could be used for the school nutrition

program. This low authorization level as well as the low floor for state

investment in school nutrition programs is likely to result in significantly

reduced meal opportunities for schoolchildren.

2) The block granting of this program would eliminate the state matching

requirements. As a result of this elimination local school districts would lose

additional support for school nutrition programs.

- 3 -

55

52

3) Under H.R. 4 the eligibility criteria for reduced price lunches will be

significantly narrowed. As a result many youngsters who live in families that

have real difficulty making ends meet are likely to lose access to reduced price

meals.

For all these reasons I urge members of the Committee to withdraw the school nutrition

programs from the block grant.

Since 95% of public schoolS participate in this program these cutbacks will be felt in

almost every community across the country. And I'd just like to make clear that it will

not only be low-income urban schoolchildren that will suffer. As I mentioned before I

am a local board member from Iowa. In my home town of Pella and indeed in many

suburban and rural districts across the country the proposal contained in the PRA is

also likely to have a severe impact.

What impact will these funding reductions likely have on my district and on other

districts across the country? As a result of the changes in the PRA a school district like

mine will have two choices. We can dramatically increase prices for meals. In many

districts schools would have to increase the price of our lunch by more than 50%. This

price increase would cause many students to drop out of the program.

If enough students stopped participating many school districts would find it

prohibitively expensive to continue in the program and would cease participating. The

result is that the poor students in these districts would lose this opportunity to have

nutritious meals.

The other way a school district could make up for the loss of federal funding would be

to finance more of the costs of the meal program through its own resources. Many local

-4-

56

school districts could not afford to subsidize these programs further even if we desired

to.

One of local school board members' primary responsibilities is to vote on a district's

budget and I know first hand and from my colleagues that local funds are very scarce.

In fact many local school boards have had local bond issues voted down by taxpayers.

In many districts the money is just not there to make up for the federal cutbacks in

these programs.

In other cases additional local funds could be made available to make up for the loss of

federal funds However, this would require local school boards and superintendents

to divert more desperately needeslimndsfrom core academic programs to finance the

school junchpmgrain. Shifting additional resources toward meeting the nutritional

needs of our students would harm academic programming.

I would also like to address briefly the issue of block grants to states. I strongly

support changes which could free local educators from excessive administrative

burdens and costly federal mandates. For this reason just two weeks ago I testified

before a joint House-Senate Committee in support of H.R. 5 and S. 1 the unfunded

mandates legislation But I do not share many individuals' blind faith in block

granting funds to states as a way to empower local educators.

As a local policy maker I am familiar with how States can micro-manage local officials

and require excessive paperwork. From my perspective block granting funds to the

states with few strings attached provides no guarantee of insuring kcal flexibility.

Moreover, communities would lose at least one benefit of the federal school nutrition

legislation; the provision that requires states to provide some matching funds for school

- 5 -

57

nutrition programs. Elimination of this provision of federal law would result in local

schools losing significant funding. When it comes to block grants' actual impact on

local schools, the devil is in the details.

I would also like to offer a word of caution concerning ending the entitlement status of

the other nutrition programs such as WIC and Food Stamps. I have been a strong

advocate of coordinating effectively children's health and nutrition programs because I

believe these programs improve children's ability to learn. In the last 30 years we have

made many gains in reducing hunger among American children and it would be tragic

if we were to endanger the progress we have made. So I urge the Committee to avoid

undertaking major changes in these other nutrition programs unless you are certain the

changes will not endanger children's health and their readiness to learn.

III. CONCLUSION

I would like to conclude by reminding members of the Committee that the block

granting proposal in H.R 4 will produce real cuts in school nutrition programs. This

money matters. And since almost 95% percent of local public schools participate it will

impact on schools in your community. It will impact on the children that are going to

school and learning their lessons in order to better themselves. So it will harm the

children that you are trying to help through improving the welfare system.

I would like to thank members of this Committee for this opportunity to provide you

with information about school nutrition programs. I would be happy to work with

members of the Committee as well as staff to provide any further information you

desire.

- 6 -

58

55

Chairman GOODLING. It would be unfair at this time to startturning the light on. We forgot to do it with the first witness. Keepin mind all of us make our living talking, and we are anxious. Anysummarizing you can do would be appreciated so that we can moveon rapidly.

I must introduce the next witness for Mr. Fawell, because hewould like to welcome one of our witness. Joan Taylor is the Execu-tive Director of the Du Page Senior Citizens Council located in Mr.Fawell's district. And I will put the rest of my remarks in Mr. Fa-well's behalf in the record. I understand Mr. Fawell will be herelater. He is going back and forth between committees like we allare.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fawell as presented by Chair-man Good ling follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. HARRIS W. FAWELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THESTATE OF ILLINOIS AS PRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN GOODLING

I would like to welcome one of our witnesses, Joan Taylor, who is a constituentof Harris Fawell, a Member of the committee. Ms. Taylor is the Executive Directorof the Du Page Senior Citizens Council located in Mr. Fawell's district in Illinois.The Council operates the Nutrition Program and Home Maintenance Program whichserved more than 5,000 area senior citizens during 1995. Ms. Taylor has also beenappointed as a delegate to the 1995 White House Conference on Aging. Due to ascheduling conflict, Mr. Fawell is not able to be here to introduce Ms. Taylor, butI understand that he will be present later in the hearing.

Chairman GOODLING. Ms. Taylor.

STATEMENT OF JOAN TAYLOR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,DUPAGE SENIOR CITIZENS COUNCIL

Ms. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Good ling.I am a social worker and I represent the Du Page Senior Citizens

Council, a not-for-profit agency in Du Page County, which is a sub-urban area of Chicago. We provide nutrition and home mainte-nance programs for older people and for their families. I represent4,400 nutrition program participants and 1,800 volunteers whoserve them.

I am presenting the testimony this morning to express really mydismay at the proposed Title V of H.R. 4 in its potential effect- onolder Americans.

I began my work in 1960 in the inner city in Chicago when wedidn't have an Older Americans Act, and the only choice if yourfamily couldn't take care of you was for an older person to go intoa nursing home.

The aging network today encourages public and private partner-ships. We receive support from United Way, churches, businesses,volunteers and other social agencies.

Our participants contribute to the cost of their service. Last yearin our area, participants contributed 38 percent of the cost. The nu-trition program as authorized by the Older Americans Act is themost effective preventive program we as a Nation have to preventinstitutionalization of older people.

Our program also is cost effective. Often it is a hot nutritiousmeal that makes it possible for an older person to come home fromthe hospital. We did a survey of our home-delivered meal clientsand found out that 36 percent of them confirmed that they might

59

56

have to go into a nursing home if they didn't get a home deliveredmeal.

We can provide a meal for $4.37 a day. That includes all admin-istrative costs. Less than half of that is Federal money. One dayin a hospital costs about $1,000, of which Medicare pays 80 per-cent.

Second, I believe that the proposal for placing the senior nutri-tion program in a block grant with welfare food programs puts theentire community-based social system for keeping seniors out ofnursing homes in great danger. Seniors would have to submit tomeans tests to receive meals. Again, this was the whole idea of theOlder Americans Act, was to take the senior portion out of themeans testing portion.

We would exclude people who have physical and mental limita-tions, high medical expenses, seniors who live alone, and seniorswho struggle to maintain themselves and living just above the pov-erty level. Who would tell these people that they are to be excludedfrom that program?

Limiting senior participation would decimate our program be-cause it would make it much more expensive to serve a few people.Yet, the ineligible people pay a substantial part of their cost.

I understand that the goal of this Act is to increase local involve-ment and to save money. I believe placing the nutrition programin the block grant would have the opposite effect. It is my viewthat there would be no savings because of the greater cost of Med-icaid and Medicare programs. And local resources would be lost be-cause private citizens and businesses do not augment programslike food stamps.

In the question period I would be happy to address some alter-native ideas for cost saving. But in no way do I want to imply thatwe can stand a reduction in costs and do the same job.

For 30 years the Older Americans Act nutrition program hasworked effective in helping frail people live in dignity. Its successin part is due to the high standards set at the Federal level as wellas the participation of the State and the grassroots involvementthrough the area agencies.

This important system of checks and balances and the ability totransfer funds between services limits administrative costs andkeeps the bulk of funds going into the services. And older peopleare involved at every level.

In closing, I urge you to take more time to study this complex.issue. I understand that there is a national evaluation right nowof the congregate and home-delivered meals program. I urge you toextend the Older Americans Act until you have had time to studythe results of this comprehensive evaluation.

Please don't change a system that is working for the benefit ofolder people.

Thank you so much.[The prepared statement of Ms. Taylor follows:]

60

57

Testimony to the House Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee,February 1, 9:30 am. by Joan Taylor, M.S.W., Executive Director, Du Page SeniorCitizens Council, Du Page County, Illinois.

My name is Joan Taylor and I have worked with older Americans since 1960. I ama masters level social worker and Executive Director of Du Page Senior CitizensCouncil, a not for profit agency, serving seniors and their families in Du PageCounty, Illinois, a Chicago suburb, for twenty years by providing nutrition, homemaintenance and volunteer opportunities. I represent 1,000 members, 1,800+volunteers, and 4,418 Nutrition Program participants.

I am presenting this testimony to you Mr. Chairman and to the House Economicand Educational Opportunities Committee to express my dismay at the proposedTitle V of H.R. 4, "The Personal Responsibility Act" and its potential affect on olderAmericans.

First I want to impress upon you the many ways the Older Americans Act is asuccess story using Du Page Senior Citizens Council as a case study.

The aging. network encourages public-private partnerships with support fromUnited Ways, social agencies, churches, volunteers, corporations and business.All Nutrition Program participants are asked to contribute to the cost of any servicethey receive. Last year our participants contributed 38% of the cost of the NutritionProgram. (Attachment A)

The Nutrition Program as authorized by the Older Americans Act is the mosteffective preventative program we as a nation have for keeping senior citizens outof hospitals and nursing homes. As such, it is both a humanitarian and costeffective program. Older Americans want to stay in their own homes as long aspossible, maintaining their independence and quality of life. Often a hot nutritioushome delivered meal is the key element to discharging a senior from the hospital.These meals support families in their efforts to keep seniors out of institutions. In

a recent client survey, 36% of home delivered meal participants confirmed thatwithout the meals they might have to go into a nursing home. (Attachment B)

The Nutrition Program is more cost effective than institutionalization. Let me backthat up with some figures. We provide a meal for $4.37 a day, of which Jess thanhalf is federal money. One day in a hospital often costs $1,000 with Medicarepaying 80%. One day in a nursing home costs about $100. (Attachment A)

1

61

58

Second, I believe the Title V of H.R. 4 proposal for placing the senior NutritionProgram in a block grant with welfare food programs puts the entire communitybased service system for senior in great danger. I believe the community basednetworks that helps seniors stay in their own homes would be lost for ever ifcongress votes to place the Nutrition programs in a welfare block grant.

If the Nutrition program were placed with other welfare programs, seniors wouldhave to submit to means testing to receive meals. Those who would be excludedby means testing could include seniors with physical or mental limitations, highmedical expenses, seniors living alone and seniors who have struggled to maintainthemselves and have just a bit more than $7,360. We target our services not onlyto seniors with low incomes but also those who are frail and disabled, minorities,those who have limited ability to speak English, those who live alone and thoseover 75 years of age. Who will tell them that they are excluded from the program?I don't want to be the one, do you?

Limiting senior participation by means tests would decimate the program and makeit impossible or very expensive to serve the eligible. Yet these ineligible peopleneed services and indeed pay a substantial part of the cost.

In the words of nursing home administrator Wesley Ringdahl, President of FairviewVillages, "I have yet to see an older person who was not devastated when theirfinancial resources were exhausted and they were required to accept publicassistance." (See attachment C).

We see an important trend toward greater intergenerational cooperation. Oursenior leaders are deeply concerned about the effects of poverty and malnutritionon young people. My Board has gone on record as supporting food programs forthe hungry of any age. Placing seniors in competition with younger people is nota good direction for this country.

I understand that the goal of this act is to increase local involvement and savemoney. I believe placing the Nutrition Program in the H.R.4 block grant wouldhave the opposite effect. It is my view that there would be no savings becausethere would be increased Medicaid/Medicare costs. Much money would be wastedby administering means tests. Local resources would be lost because privatecitizens and businesses do not pay to augment programs like food stamps.

In the question period, I'd be happy to discuss some alternative ideas for costsavings.

2

62.

59

For thirty years the Older Americans Act Nutrition Program has worked effectivelyin helping frail older people live in dignity. Its success is due in part to the highstandards set at the federal level as well as the participation of the states and thegrassroots involvement through the Area Agencies at the local level. Thisimportant system of checks, balances and the ability to transfer funds betweenservices limits administrative cost and keeps the bulk of the funds going intoservices. Older people are involved at every level with advisory boards. Therehas been no national scandal attached to aging services in 30 years.

In closing, I urge you take more time to study this complex issue. I understand thata national evaluation of congregate and home delivered meal programs is currentlyunderway. Please extend the Older Americans Act until you've had time to weighthe results of this comprehensive evaluation.

As responsible citizens we support the goal of local involvement and cost savings.Following are some ideas to accomplish these worthy goals.

I believe it is important to streamline and simplify the Older Americans Act, reducepaperwork and thus limit administrative costs at all levels. One reform would beto consolidate the smaller titles such as preventive health, abuse prevention,pension counseling etc. under supportive services.

Another reform would be to allow even greater flexibility at the local level in utilizingthe allocations according to the priority needs of seniors in the communities. Forexample, in our area, the need for Home Delivered Meals has dramaticallyincreased, but the funding is much greater for congregate than home deliveredmeals. We have to request the Area Agency for a transfer from one category toanother. The Area Agency makes a request to the state and the state to thefederal. It would be more efficient and require less administrative cost to allow theArea Agencies at the local level make the determination with input from thecommunities and the approval of the state.

The community based agencies would in some instances be in a good position toincrease senior contributions if there were greater flexibility in methods of achievingthis. Our situation may be very different from a rural area or a metropolitan areaas to how this might be done. For example, the current legislation prohibits usfrom using a sliding scale fee schedule.

3

63-.

60

Attachment ACost Analysis of Meals provided by Du Page Senior Citizens Council

Per Meal Cost $4.37Participant Contribution $1.67 38%Older Americans Act Grant $1.23 28%US Department of Agriculture $ .65 15%State Funds $ .53 12%Community Contributions

United Way, individual $ .29 7%

These costs include food and administrative expenses. They do NOTinclude a calculation for volunteer time as in-kind.

Seniors avoid hospitalization or nursing home stays by improving their nutrition withregular participation in a senior nutrition program. A significant cost savings notonly for the Federal government is realized with community based programs.

The cost in Du Page of an additional day in the hospital ranges between $650 to$1,000. Medicare covers 80% or $520 to $800. The same amount of federaldollars could provide up to 426 Council meals.

The cost in Du Page of a day in a nursing home for skilled care ranges between$80 and $171.50. While Medicaid pays $68 per day for nursing home care, ourprogram could use. The same amount would to supply home delivered meals to36 participants.

Demographics - Du Page Senior Citizens Council Nutrition Program

Du Page 60+ population1980 68,310 or 12% of total population2010 181,967 or 18% of total population

The Nutrition Program served 4,418 senior participants during FY 1994or approximately 4.6% of the total sixty and over population. Average Dailynumber of meats 1,298: 867 Home Delivered and 431 Congregate Meals.

1,596 in the Home Delivered Meal and 2,822 in the Congregate program1,955 who live alone and 2,476 who are over 75 years of age489 who reported they have income at or below poverty level52 who are non English speaking8 who are African American, 41 Asian/Pacific Islanders and35 who are Hispanic

To meet the needs of a growing senior population, the Council must continue to be asflexible as possible responding to community needs. The volunteer corps must beexpanded and alternatives found to help seniors remain in their own homes. Localfinancial resources must be developed to meet the increasing demand.

64

61

Attachment B

Responses to the National Association of Meal Programs Survey

In December, 1994 the Du Page Senior Citizens Council mailed a NationalAssociation of Meal Programs survey to all nutrition program participantsalong with a request to contribute to the Council. Here are some highlightsof their responses to the survey.

89% of the Home Delivered Meal and 51% of the Congregateparticipants agreed that the nutrition program meals are theirmost important source of nutrition.

Of the Home Delivered Meal participants completing the survey...

36% Confirmed that without Home Delivered meals they might haveto go into a nursing home.

73% Indicated it would be difficult to "find another way of gettingnutritious meals on a regular basis" without Home DeliveredMeals.

88% Agreed that the personal contact with those who deliver mealsis important to them.

83% Believe they now contribute a "fair share" to the program, 42%are willing to contribute more "if it would allow me and others tocontinue to receive meals".

Of the Congregate participants completing the survey...

94% Agreed that the contact with other participants at the mealprogram is important to them.

76% Responded that if they became physically unable to go to adining center, they would probably apply for home deliveredmeals.

96% Believe they now contribute a "fair share" to the program, 57%are willing to contribute more "if it would allow me and others tocontinue to receive meals"

There were responses from 153 or 10% of the Home Delivered Meal participantsand 100 or 4% of the Congregate participants. 1/12/95

5

92-373 95 3 65

62

Attachment C

FAIRVIEWMINISTRIES, INC.210 Village Dnve Down= Grove. IL 60516 -3036(708) 769-6000 FAX (708) 769-6020

January 23, 1995

The Honorable Harris W. FawellHouse of RepresentativesLongworth HOBWashington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Fawell:

We are writing in regard to the Older Americans Act andspecifically the Senior Nutrition Program that is part of thatAct.

Fairview Baptist some has worked in concert with the DuPageSenior Citizens Council to provide both meals and volunteers fortransportation of these meals to seniors in our community. Weunderstand that proposed changes in this Act would remove thesenior nutrition programs and place them in a welfare block grantto the states. Home Delivered Meals is Act a welfare program.In fact, its presence serves to keep seniors off of the welfareroles by allowing them to live longer in their own homes andthereby either delay or eliminate the very expensive institu-tional alternative. In addition to this, by keeping them offwelfare, it allows them to maintain pride and dignity in themidst of a period of time when they experience many losses. I

have yet to see an older person who was not devastated when theirfinancial resources were exhausted and they were required toaccept public assistance.

We request that you be an advocate for the seniors in yourcongressional district and for the nation by making every effortto retain the Senior Nutrition Program as part of the OlderAmericans Act.

Thank you very such for your assistance and support.

Very truly yours,

Wesley P. Ringdahl, CFAcHcAPresident

2. a. rsaA- -sr.e..e..acc..-e=.evc_

6

66

63

Participant Experiences Attachment D

Letter from Congregate Participant"I am a diabetic, and, as such, I have special diet needs and restrictions. Severalmornings weekly I come to participate in senior activities. I have tried for a yearto find a place for lunch that is not too expensive, too slow, too far away or notbeyond my diabetic diet. As a result I have not followed my diet and have felt theeffects on my health.

In this program, I get a balanced diet with special substitutions well within my timeframe. The food is good and well chosen, and I can afford it on my teacher'spension.

This has been a great help to my health. Unless I can find some way to keep myspecial diet, I shall have to go on insulin. With these meals, I probably can avoidthis."

Home Delivered Meal Participant ...is the primary caregiver for his wife who is suffering from Alzheimers. Their homedelivered meals assure that they receive one balanced meal each day. One dayhe was not at home to receive the meal when the volunteer arrived. The DiningCenter Director called and he began crying, saying that it was one of his wife's"difficult" days. He was unable to get her home from her Dr.'s appointment in timeto receive the meal. The Director took two meals over and learned that he wouldwelcome any support. One of the volunteers who delivers their meals (a youngman of 82) had cared for his wife who also had Alzheimers. This volunteerarranged to deliver George's meals last so they had time to visit and they beganattending an Alzheimers support group together. When the time came for his wifeto enter a nursing home, he had the support of others to guide him through makingthis difficult decision.

Congregate participantA 75 year old World War II veteran participates daily in the Nutrition Program. Heuses a walker; but is still able to drive. He has a regular medical check up atHines VA Medical Center and has had the meal program menu approved byhospital staff. When his military records were lost, he spent almost two yearsresearching and writing his experiences as a Marine in the South Pacific. Asecretary at the Center offered to type the paper. As a result, he was awarded thePurple Heart on May 3, 1991. He chose to have the ceremony with all his friendsfrom the Center in attendance.

Congregate and Home Delivered Meal Participant...lives at home with her son. She kept putting of a needed hip replacement surgery.When her son became engaged, she had the surgery. She discontinued mealsduring the time she spent at a rehabilitation center. One of her volunteer driversvisited her at the center. They phoned to say her mood had improved from thatvisit and her therapy was progressing with much more enthusiasm. She camehome, continued therapy, and eventually recovered enough to come forCongregate meals. The social benefits of her participation allowed her son to feelfree to marry and she walked him down the aisle!

6

64

Chairman GOODLING. Thank you.Mr. Temple-West.

STATEMENT OF PATRICK F. E. TEMPLEWEST, DIRECTOR, NU-TRITION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, ARCHDIOCESE OFPHILADELPHIAMr. TEMPLE-WEST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Good morning to Mr. Greenwood, in whose district we provide

many child 'nutrition programs.I direct an office of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadel-

phia. This office is charged with providing meals and other food as-sistance programs to children and the needy. This office, called Nu-tritional Development Services, operates all of the federally sub-sidized child meals programs that serve mostly needy children.

I have attached a sheet which will give you an idea of the sizeof our programs. NDS also provides other Federal, State and non-government supported food programs to the needy. In the pastNDS has operated the elderly nutrition program.

We applaud the opening up of the Federal food assistance pro-grams for serious examination. It will foster debate and ensurethat they are meeting the expectations of the American people;namely that they are needed, that they work, and that they arecost efficient.

Thank you for asking for the input of a frontline provider. Weproviders have to deliver what Congress and the administrationproposes. We see this process as opening discussion, weighing allalternatives, and arriving at consensus.

Your initiative has certainly stirred things up. Ideas are beingfloated that would have been unthinkable six months ago. The rev-olution of renewal and innovation is upon us.

Our initial reaction to Title V of H.R. 4 is puzzlement. We ques-tion the appropriateness of including child meals or WIC or eventhe elderly nutrition program in a bill to restore the American fam-ily, reduce illegitimacy, control welfare spending and reduce wel-fare dependence.

We would argue that the primary purpose of child meals pro-grams is to preserve the health of the child and to achieve othergoals such as better educational performance and lower healthcosts. We note that the elderly nutrition program is not evenmeans tested. This bill changes the whole rationale of these pro-grams.

An example of the effect of this change in rationale can be seenon our special milk program. This program contributes to thehealth of children, their educational performance, and encouragesthe consumption of milk.

We provide this program in 23 schools located in working andmiddle class neighborhoods; 3,400 working and middle class chil-dren get a half pint of milk for 10 cents each day. This legislationwould eliminate this benefit. These working and middle class fami-lies would now have to pay between 25 and 35 cents for the samemilk. Our program would cease. The consumption of milk wouldfall by at least two-thirds, and the health, educational and con-sumption benefits would be lost.

68

65

Title V sets out an extreme position. It provides a good startingplace and we would hope there is room for discussion and com-promise. We recommend that the revolutionary change in purposeof these programs be given time to be adequately debated, and ifagreed upon, achieved over a longer period of time than is pres-ently anticipated.

The legislation brings four separate areas of change and chal-lenge to NDS, to my office, at the local level. They are: that onlyneedy children can be assisted; capping fundingfunding can becapped without block grants; block grants to States; and removalof administrative regulations.

Capping funding gives us most concern. If it is difficult to capschool meals, it is more difficult to cap childcare meals. All of thesechild meals programs are interrelated and face similar problems inthis regard. It is the child who comes for food, not the parent, asin other programs. The child does not understand why he or shecannot get a meal. The current entitlement for child meals pro-grams should be continued.

This provision will also have the most administrative impact. Itwill turn the programs on their heads. Capping the program wouldprobably change the method of reimbursement from a performance-based model to a grant model similar to that of the elderly nutri-tion program. This model will be difficult, if not impossible, for sin-gle site and small providers to follow.

We recommend that all of the child meals programs be removedfrom this legislation and considered separately as a group. We rec-ommend the consideration be given to reducing costs for more effi-cient administration and that costs be reduced by modifying bene-fits, and as this legislation implies, thereby reducing dependency.

We offer the following suggestion that we think can achieve thegoals of H.R. 4 without hardship, in the spirit of cooperation andpartnership for providing a service that is needed, that works, andis delivered effectively.

These are examples for reducing program cost, for reducing bene-fits. They are advanced with some hesitancy. If we can think ofthese, there must be others, perhaps more appropriate. We are notsocial scientists and have no idea if reduction of benefits will re-duce dependency. Our own anecdotal experience is that reductionof benefits in the elderly community increases homelessness.

If benefits are to be reduced, we suggest that benefits be reducedfor older children rather than younger children. For example, con-sideration could be given for eliminating subsidies served to seniorhigh students. By this age the nutritional experience of the schoolmeals program should be bearing fruit.

We note that the upper age limit for children seems to be arbi-trary and for administrative convenience. We aren't sure for thescientific reason for setting it at 18. The upper limit for childcaremeals is 12.

We suggest that consideration be given to permitting schools andchildcare centers to accept a nominal payment for all meals. Thereimbursement could reduce by a lesser amount to encourage par-ticipation. This would allow the option to accept the money or ab-sorb loss.

69

66

We suggest limiting childcare center eligibility to geographicareas specified under the meals program. This would appear tosupport goals of H.R. 4.

We suggest considering replacing the nutrition education train-ing program funding with an option or requirement that a percent-age of the program costs to a sponsor of child meals programs goesfor nutrition education.

Reduced program cost through administrative efficiencies. Herewe make these recommendations without reservation or equivo-cation as an area where we see that change is needed. We needonly one child meals program. There are two major laws governingchild meals programs, the National School Lunch Act and the ChildNutrition Act. The location of each program in these two laws ishistorical and arbitrary.

For example, school lunch is governed by one. School breakfastby the other. We recommend that they be combined into one pieceof legislation.

There are five sets of regulations regulating each program. Werecommend one set of regulations for all of them. We recommendone program be created providing meals to children in different lo-cations under different circumstances and just as the childcare pro-gram now does, with different reimbursement rates and adminis-trative requirements. These can be specified for each of the specialcircumstances such as in school, during the summer, in childcare,or in homeless shelters, et cetera.

At the very least, this recommendation would half the legislativeoverhead of these programs, reduce the number of entitled pro-grams by four, reduce the code of Federal regulations by a quarterof an inch, reduce the legislative staff time and cost, reduce legisla-tive printing cost, reduce the USDA staff time writing the legisla-tion, reduce printing costs to the code of Federal regulations andpossibly reduce the number of USDA and administrative staffoverseeing the programs.

Since most officials sponsor one type of program, most sponsorswill not see much. change. But those who sponsor more than onetype would greatly benefit. There would be one set of procurementstandards, one set of eligibility standards, one set of audit reviewprocedures, et cetera.

Thank you for the opportunity to come before you at this mostimportant time. I would be happy to address any questions or con-cerns the committee may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Temple-West follows:]

70

67

Testimony of

Patrick. F.E. Temple-WestDirector

Nutritional Development ServicesArchdiocese of Philadelphia

111 South 38th StreetPhiladelphia PA 19104

(215) 895-3470

Before the

Committee on Economic and Educational OpportunitiesU.S. House of Representatives

William F. Good ling, Chairman

February 1, 1995

1

r

71

68

My name is Patrick Temple-West. 1 direct an office of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese ofPhiladelphia called Nutritional Development Services. This office is charged with providing mealsand other food assistance to children and the needy. This office operates all of the federallysubsidized meals programs serving mostly needy children. I have attached a sheet which will give"you an idea of the size of our programs. NDS also provides other federal, state, and non-government supported food programs to the needy. In the past NDS has operated the elderlynutrition program.

We applaud the opening up of federal food assistance programs for serious examination. It willfoster debate and ensure that they are meeting the expectations of the American people; namelythat they are needed, that they work, and that they are cost efficient.

Thank you for asking for the input of a front-line provider, we providers have to deliver whatcongress and the administration proposes.

We see this process as opening discussion, weighing alternatives, and arriving at consensus. Yourinitiative has certainly stirred things up. The immediate beneficiaries have been telephonecompanies and fax machine sellers. Ideas are being floated that would have been unthinkable sixmonths ago The revolution of renewal and innovation is upon us.

Our initial reaction to Title V of HR4 is puzzlement. We question the appropriateness ofincluding child meals programs or WIC in a bill "To restore the American family, reduceillegitimacy, control welfare spending and reduce welfare dependence." We would argue that theprimary purpose of child meals programs is to preserve the health of the child and to achieve othergoals such as better educational performance and lower health costs. We note that the elderlynutrition program is not even means tested.

This bill changes the whole rationale of these programs.

An example of the effect of this change can be seen on our special milk program This programcontributes to the health of children, their educational performance, and encourages theconsumption of milk. We provide this program in 23 schools located in working and middle classneighborhoods. 3,400 working and middle class children get a half pint of milk for 10 cents eachday. This legislation would eliminate this benefit. These working and middle class families wouldnow have to pay between 25 and 35 cents for the same milk. Our program would cease. Theconsumption of milk would fall by about two thirds and the health, educational, and consumptionbenefits would be lost.

Title V sets out an extreme position. It provides a good starting place and we would hope thatthere is room for discussion and compromise. We recommend that the revolutionary change inpurpose of the programs be given time to be adequately debated, and if agreed upon be, achievedover a longer time period than is presently anticipated.

2

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

72.

69

The legislation brings four separate areas of change and challenge to NDS at the local level. Theyare; only needy children can be assisted; capping funding (funding can be capped without blockgrants); block grants to states; removal of administrative regulations.

Only needy children to be assisted

If we understand the Lower Living Income Standards, the upper limit of eligibility would be, forNDS in the Northeast, about 170% of poverty. This is a little less than the reduced price cut-off,but fbr us, the difference is negligible. Other areas of the country with different limits may havedifferent concerns. Since NDS serves mostly needy children this restriction probably would notaffect NDS programs much in the short term. The removal of support for paying children wouldincrease the disparity between those in a school or center getting five and those paying. Thisstigma would make the program harder to introduce in marginal schools.

It will eliminate our special milk program. It will require additional money from about 30% ofour school meals program parents to participate; as many as 50% of these may drop out. It will

have a lesser impact on child care.

If individual eligibility determination is required for the summer program, that program will bedrastically reduced, by at least 50%.

We do not see eligibility paper work decreasing. The legislation specifies that recipients must beeconomically disadvantaged.

Our colleagues inform us that this provision will end the school lunch program as we know it.They are predicting a catastrophe. We at NDS, with our emphasis on needy children, are not asalarmed.

Capping funding

Capping the funding gives us most concern. Wit is difficult to cap school meals, then it is moredifficult to cap child care meals. All of these child meals programs are inter-related and face thesame problem in this regard. It is the child who comes for food; not the parent, as in otherprograms. The child does not understand why he or she can not get ameal. The current

entitlement for child meals programs should be continued.

This provision will also have the most administrative impact. It will turn the programs on theirheads.. Capping the program would probably change the method of reimbursement from aperformance based model to a grant model similar to that of the elderly nutrition program. This

model will be difficult, if not impossible, for single site and small providers to follow.

3

73

70

Block grant to states

The legislation contains a sub block - child meals programs. It recognizes the uniqueness of theseprograms; that they are similar in purpose and operation. We applaud this insighton the part ofthe legislation. We agree that they should be treated as a unit.

We anticipate that there will be competition between the various providers for the limited funds.In this we see a new area of paper work - a justification of need. The ability of children to receivefood will be based on a providers grant writing ability - the case that it makes for the need of thechildren. We would also expect some evaluation built into the provider requirements. NDS couldhandle this but probably not single or small providers.

We would add the homeless meals program to this category of service.

If we must have block grants we would recommend more than one block grant. This would limitthe competition for funds within the block grants to like programs.

We recommend:

the separation of food stamps into its own block grant,

a child meals block grant (keeping all of the meals programs together as in the presentlegislation). We would prefer not to block grant this area

school mealschild care mealssummer mealsSpecial milkHomeless meals

an elderly block grantElderly nutrition programadult care meals

a community nutrition block grant(presently non-entitled)WICFarmers' market couponsInstitutional commodities

4

74

71

Elimination of administrative restrictions

The federal government may eliminate its administrative restrictions but no one is going to givesponsors money without guidelines. They will be replaced at the state level. These could be moreor less onerous. States would probably continue the federal regulations for the short term. Wesee no reduction in paper work and anticipate an increase in statistical reporting tojustify need.

RECOMMENDATIONS

We recommend that all of the child meals programs be removed from this legislation andconsidered separately as a group. We recommend that consideration be given to reducing coststhrough more efficient administration and we also suggest that costs can be reduced by modifyingbenefits (and as this legislation implies, thereby reducing dependency). We offer the followingsuggestions that we think could achieve the goals of HR4 without the hardship. We offer them inthe spirit of cooperation and partnership in providing a service that is needed, that works, and that

is delivered efficiently.

Examples for reducing program costs through reducing benefits

These examples are suggested for the purpose of stimulating discussion, they are advancedwith

some hesitancy. We are not advocating their adoption but suggesting them as possibilities. If we

can think of these, then there must be others, perhaps moreappropriate. We are not socialscientists and so have no idea if reduction in benefits will reduce dependency. Ourunscientific

and anecdotal experience is that reduction of benefits in the low income community increaseshomelessness. We recommend that benefits reduced in one area be compensated for in otherareas.

If the benefits are to be reduced, we suggest that benefits be reduced for older children rather than

for younger children. For example, consideration could be given to eliminatingsubsidies for

meals served to senior high students. By this age the educational experience of the school meals

program should be bearing fruit. We note that the upper age limit for children seems to bearbitrary and for administrative convenience. We arc unsure of the scientific reason for setting it

at 18. The upper limit for child care meals is 12.

We suggest that consideration be given to permitting schools and child care centers to accept anominal payment for all meals. The reimbursement could be reduced by a lesser amount toencourage sponsor participation. This would allow the sponsor the option to accept the money or

absorb the loss.

We suggest considering limiting child care center eligibility to geographic areas as specified under

the summer meals program. This would appear to support the goals of HR4.

We suggest considering replacing the N.E.T. program funding with an option or requirement that

a percentage of program costs of the sponsor or child meals programs go for nutrition education.

5.

75

72

Reduce program costs through administrative efficiencies

Here we make these recommendations without reservation or equivocation. This is the areawhere we see that change is needed. We need only one child meals program.

There are two major laws governing child meals programs; National School Lunch Act and theChild Nutrition Act. The location of each program in these two laws is historical and arbitrary;for example, school lunch is governed by one, school breakfast by the other. We recommendthat they be combined into one piece of legislation.

There are five sets of regulations each regulating each separate program. We recommend one setof regulations for all of them.

As is implied in Title V, all of the child meals programs are connected. It is very difficult toseparate out one without effecting another. School lunch, breakfast, and special milk are schoolbased programs. However the school lunch programs can be served in residential child careinstitutions, special milk can be provided in child care centers. The summer meals program isessentially a continuation of the school meals program for needy children during the summer. TheChild and Adult Care Program actually has three separate programs contained within it; child carecenters, child care homes, and adult care centers and has no problem including three meals. Thesecenters also provide after school snacks to school children. A school can be licensed as a schooland a child care center and provide after school snacks.

We recommend one program be created providing meals to children in different locations andunder different circumstances, and, just as the child care program now does, with differentreimbursement rates and administrative requirements. These administrative requirements can bespecified for each of the existing special circumstances such as in school, during the summer, inchild care, in homeless shelters, etc.

At the very least this recommendation would;

halve the legislative overhead for these programs,reduce the number of entitled programs by four,reduce the code of federal regulations by a quarter of an inch,reduce legislative staff time and costs,reduce legislative printing costs,reduce USDA staff time writing the regulations,reduce the printing costs of the code of Federal regulations,possibly reduce the number of USDA and state administrative staff overseeing theprograms.

Since most organizations only sponsor one type of program, most sponsors would not see muchchange But, those of us who sponsor more than one type of program would be greatly benefited;there would be one set of definitions, one set of procurement standards, one grievance procedure,one set of eligibility standards, one set of audit and review procedures, etc.

6

76

73

Federally supported child meals programs provided by Nutritional Development Services

Daily number of sites and children served

National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Programs

53 schools27 residential child care institutions

1,300 breakfasts6,400 lunchr,s

Special Milk Program

23 schooli

3,400 milks

Child and Adult Care Program

54 child care centers

1,500 breakfasts1,500 lunches1,800 snacks

Summer Food Service for Children

492 community sites

16,500 breakfasts26,000 lunches

Homeless Children Food Program

4 shelters

120 breakfasts110 lunches

74

Chairman GOODLING. Thank you.I would tell Ms. Hurt that your Congressman is in a full commit-

tee hearing on the Agriculture Committee right now on foodstamps. So, that is why he is not here.

Ms. Hurt.

STATEMENT OF MARILYN HURT, FOOD SERVICE SUPERVISOR,SCHOOL DISTRICT OF LACROSSE

Ms. HURT. I am sorry he isn't here.Chairman Good ling, Members of the committee, I appreciate the

opportunity to be with you this morning. I am Marilyn Hurt, thesupervisor of school nutrition programs for LaCrosse, Wisconsin.We are proud to have Congressman Steve Gunderson represent uson this committee.

I would ask that my written testimony be included in the record.But this morning I am here to tell you about our programs in La-Crosse.

We have an excellent school nutrition program in LaCrosse. Infact, there was a front-page article in the LaCrosse Tribune lastweek about an innovative meal program that we just began withsecond semester. But today what I want to do is share with youareas where we could increase our cost effectiveness. And I wantto review how Title V of H.R. 4 would impact our program in La-Crosse.

We have concerns about the PRA, and what it would do to nutri-tion programs. And I understand, Mr. Chairman, that you haveshared some of the same concerns that we have.

It appears that we have a window of opportunity to restructurethese programs in the weeks ahead. And I am here to volunteer tohelp with the process.

As I have read of the 104th Congress' efforts to reduce the sizeof the Federal deficit, I have considered how we might improve ourprograms' efficiencies. The first thing that seems to me that needsto be addressed is the whole process of collecting, reviewing, sort-ing, and tracking the income of the families who apply for the mealbenefits.

Surely there are other agencies who are gathering and trackingthe very same data. You know, I have one 10-month employee inmy office that is there just to keep track of this information andsee that it is all in order for an audit.

It used to be that at the beginning of the school year for the firsttwo months all of us in the office really concentrated on the infor-mation with income and collecting that data. But now we must con-tinually update that information, so it is become a full-time posi-tion.

Secondly, we need to have one program, and you have heard itmentioned here this morning already, to use a popular word in ourbusiness, a seamless program.

I brought with me the file that we have to turn in in order tohave the summer food service program in nine sites in LaCrossefor a five-week program. This is what we send into the State ofWisconsin in order to have that program.

As you can see, it takes a great deal of time to fill out all of thoseforms. We need one contract for all programs with one set of rules.

78

75

We also need to eliminate some of the burdensome rules that arenot friendly to children. For example, checking their plates at theend of the line to see that they have at least three items on theirplate. That is no way to teach children how to eat. They glare atus when we tell them, "You need to go back for one more item,"then they go get that item and later when they go to dump theirtray they throw it away.

We would much rather be teaching children how to make theright choices, and then they are much more likely, we have learnedfrom our experience, to take all the items and to consume them.

We also need to eliminate the stigma that is attached to this pro-gram, sorting kids out by income. PRA, Mr. Chairman, does not ad-dress these issues. In fact, it would only make my job of deliveringnutritious food to children much more difficult.

Here is what would happen in LaCrosse. First, it would reduceour flexibility in providing meals when families really need it. Inyesterday's LaCrosse Tribune, it was announced that one of ourmajor companies laid off 200 employees on Friday. Under PRA, Iwould be unable to serve the families that would need the programat this time in their lives.

We also do a number of things to increase the efficiency. Youknow, we are right on the Mississippi River, and so we manage aprogram over in Minnesota, and our districts came together nineyears ago and decided we could share reserves, the managementresources.

Well, if we had PRA, and each State, Minnesota and Wisconsin,had different rules and regulations for us to follow, we would beunable to do that efficiently to manage the programs in bothStates.

Another thing that we do is we provide meals to smaller schoolswithin our city. Last year we had four private schools. This yearwe have two private schools, because two schools dropped out ofthe program.

And I remember when the principal of St. Thomas more calledme this summer and said, we just can't afford to keep this programgoing anymore. And I am sorry, it has been a wonderful program,but we cannot afford to do it.

And I believe that under PRA, we would lose more of those pro-grams. We also know that prices would increase with this. Andparticipation would drop. I mean, when we raise our prices a nick-el, we sawthe last time we did this, we saw a decrease in thepaid meal participation of 4.4 percent. A nickel. And we lost thosestudents.

So if we had the PRA, we are estimating prices would go up 50cents, 60 cents, 65 cents. What would happen to the paid meal par-ticipants? And then as a result, we end up only feeding the needy.Once again, we are dealing with the stigma issue and it would onlybe poor children in the line.

Finally, I am concerned that there would be no nutrition stand-ards guiding this program. The parents in our district have told metime and time again that they know when their children eat schoollunch and school breakfast with us that they can depend on thesemeals being nutritious. I am glad to have their trust. I want tokeep it.

79

76

In conclusion, I bring to you a resolution that was passed by theLaCrosse Board of Education on January 16. We had two very gooddiscussions about how our programs are funded and how we keepthem financially sound as a result of the PRA being introduced.And so they have asked me to bring to you three things that theywould like for to you do as you consider your decision.

First, preserve the child nutrition programs for all children.Secondly, maintain the nutrition integrity of these programs.And finally, provide us with performance-based funding as you

continue your long support of these programs so that we can relyon the funding as we plan our programs.

I appreciate being here today, and I would be glad to answer anyquestions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.[The prepared statement of Ms. Hurt follows:]

80

77

Testimony

of the

American School Food Service Association

before the

Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee

February 1, 1995

Chairman Goodling, Members of

the opportunity to be with you this

the Director of Child Nutrition

very proud of our representation

Steve Gunderson. I also serve as

in

the Committee, I appreciate

morning.

LaCrosse,

I am Marilyn Hurt,

Wisconsin. We are

on this Committee by Congressman

the Chairperson of the American

School Food Service Association, Public Policy and Legislative

Committee. We appreciate the opportunity to be here and share

our views on the nutrition block grant.

The National School Lunch Act was enacted in 1946 "as a

measure of national security" because so many young recruits

failed their draft physicals due to nutrition related diseases.

Building upon the success of the School Lunch Program, Congress

enacted the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 "in recognition of the

demonstrated relationship between food and good nutrition and the

capacity of children to develop and learn."

81

78

Today, the School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast

Program serve approximately 26 million and 6 million students a

day, respectively. They are augmented by the Child and Adult

Care Food Program, the Special Milk Program, the Summer Food

Service Program, the Nutrition Education and Training Program and

the Commodity Distribution Program. Collectively, they have been

a positive, significant influence on the health and education of

the nation's children and this is well documented through

numerous studies.

For example, the 1987 research of Meyers and Sampson, et al,

examined the effect of the School Breakfast Program on the school

performance of low-income elementary school children in Lawrence,

Massachusetts. Children who participated in the School Breakfast

Program were shown to have significantly higher standardized

achievement test scores than non-participants. Children getting

school breakfasts also had significantly reduced absence and

tardiness rates. These federal programs work. They are a

national success story.

Given the size of the federal deficit, all federal programs

should be scrutinized for their effectiveness. Child nutrition

programs are no exception. The American School Food Service

Association (ASFSA) approaches this review with an open mind.

Indeed, we have been very critical of the status quo, and how

administratively complex it is to deliver nutritious meals to the

nation's children.

-2-

82

79

We have several core beliefs that are based upon our

experience in schools -- with children -- and the school

nutrition programs:

1) You Can't Teach a Hungry Child

Providing access to nutritious meals and nutrition education

for all children should remain a high national priority. It is

both the right thing to do and the pragmatic thing to do.

President Richard Nixon-may have said it best: "P. child ill-fed

is dulled in curiosity, lower in stamina, and distracted from

learning."

2) School Nutrition Programs are Not Welfare Programs

Federal funding for child nutrition programs (including

commodity support) is provided to local schools so all children

can ,be prepared to learn. Child nutrition programs are not a

transfer payment to individuals or families, and their funding

should, therefore, not be considered in the context of welfare

reform.

3) Reliable Federal Funding is Needed

The local school must have a reliable source of performance

based federal funding if programs are to operate effectively and

provide nutrition services to all children.

4) Nutrition Goals Ensure Quality Programs

National nutrition goals and standards are essential to

ensure consistent quality programs for all children.

-3-

83

80

It is with these core principles in mind that we must share

our deep concern over Title V of H.R. 4, the Personal

Responsibility Act:

* The PRA repeals all child nutrition programs and the

Commodity Distribution Program. Performance funding is

eliminated for the School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, the Child

and Adult Care Program, and the Special Milk Program and the

Summer Food Service Program. This makes it virtually impossible

for schools to have the reliable funding and flexibility needed

to respond to changes in meal participation due to increased

enrollment and changes in the local economy.

Performance funding also provides schools with a sound

financial base that is essential for contracting with the private

sector for food, equipment and service and the employment of

personnel. It would be impossible for local school boards to

enter into contracts and set meal prices for the new school year

without knowing in advance the amount of"federal reimbursement or

contribution that would be available. In fact, many schools

would be unwilling to continue operating the program with this

financial insecurity.

* The PRA outs child nutrition funding, including commodity

support, by approximately 17 percent in FY 1996, assuming the

Congress appropriates the full amount authorised by the Act. It

is likely that funding will further erode starting in 1997, and

could be completely eliminated by the year 2000.

-4-

84

81

The PRA as currently introduced restricts how.the federal

block grant can be- used at the local level, increasing

administrative costs and inhibiting flexibility. For example,

schools could not use federal ,dollars to support the basic

infrastructure of the program so that all students, regardless of

income, may benefit from the program. All funding would have to

be used for economically disadvantaged children. Further,

schools could not use any of the federal funds to provide meals

to non-citizens, including legal aliens.

The PRA does not provide any nutrition goals or standards

for child nutrition programs. Goals and standards, based upon

the nationally adopted Recommended Dietary Allowances, the

Dietary Guidelines and the Food Guide Pyramid are needed to

ensure quality meals for children. These are research based

national standards and guidelines that need to be applied nation-

wide in all schools.

For the reasons stated, the Personal Responsibility Act, gs

introduced, jeopardizes continuation of the School Lunch Program

in more than 40,000 schools (of the 93,000 schools participating

in the program). Our opinion is based upon a Library of Congress

study done in 1985 and our experience with the budget cuts of

1981.

In each of the 93,000 participating schools, The National

School Lunch Program operates as a business--a non-profit

business. The PRA dramatically reduces revenue and increases the

cost of business. For example, schools with a high percentage of-

-5-

82

non-poor (i.e., "paid" meals) would lose 100 percent. of their

funding for students in this category. Many of these "paying"

Children are from middle income families. As a result, many of

these schools simply could no longer afford to operate their

lunch and breakfast programs, and when this happens, none of the

Children have service, including children from low income

families.

The American School Food Service Association is a non-

partisan, goal-oriented organization. Our goal is to provide

Children with nutritionally -adequate meals and nutrition

education so they may be productive students and healthy adults

who are prepared to positiVely contribute to our national life

and the global economy.

As the welfare system is reformed, we believe it is

essential to retain a national commitment to child nutrition

programs. These programs should be strengthened and integrated

into,one seamless program for all children. But this cannot

effectively be discussed in the context of a highly charged

welfare debate. The nutrition services provided through the

National School Lunch Programithe School Breakfast Program, the

Child and Adult Care Food Program, the Special Milk Program, the

Summer Food Service Program and the Commodity Distribution

Program are essential for protecting the health and enabling the

education of the nation's children.

Mr. Chairman, we do appreciate that this Congress is going

to disagree with President Clinton on a number of policy issues.

-6-

86

83

It is our hope, however, that in the area of child nutrition the

bipartisan support that has existed for these programs in the

past will continue in the future It was President Harry Truman

who signed the National School Lunch Act. It was President

Richard Nixon, after the 1969 White House Conference on Food,

Nutrition and Health, who expanded the School Lunch Program. He

signed into law a number of statutes, including Public Law 91-248

and Public Law 92-153 that established uniform national

guidelines for the free and reduced price meal program, and

established guaranteed levels of reimbursement for all lunches.

The legislation also required the Secretary to determine the need

for additional funds for the School Breakfast Program and for

non-food assistance. President Clinton in his recent State of

the Union message identified "school lunches in all our schools"

as a fundamental national need.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, we are already losing schools

from the National School Lunch Program. The General Accounting

Office's recent report to Congress identified over three hundred

schools that have voluntarily terminated their participation in

the School Lunch Program since 1989. For these schools, it was

largely a business decision i.e., the level of federal

reimbursement was inadequate to compensate the schools for the

administrative cost of the program. The PRA would exacerbate

this problem by eliminating performance funding and reducing

funding by 17 percent in FY 1996. Also, administrative burdens

and the cost to the local school would be increased. The school

nutrition programs have sustained the health and education of the

nation's children for almost 50 years. We believe this national

-7-

84

commitment should continue. We therefore urge the Congress to

reject Title V of H.R. 4 as introduced, specifically as it would

affect, the school based nutrition programs --- School Lunch,

School Breakfast, Child Care Feeding, and the Summer Food Service

Program.

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity. The

National School Lunch Act will celebrate its 50th anniversary on

June 4, 1996. We look forward to working with this Committee,

and the other authorizing Committees of Congress to fashion a

streamlined, efficient child nutrition program that will serve

all children into the neat century. I would be pleased to answer

any questions that you may have.

-8-

88

85

RESOLUTION by the Board of EducationSchool District of LaCrosse

LaCrosse, Wisconsin

WHEREAS the National School Lunch Program was established in 1946 "as ameasure of national security, to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation's

children";

WHEREAS the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 was enacted "in recognition of thedemonstrated relationship between food and good nutrition in the capacity of children todevelop and learn";

WHEREAS federal dollars for the School Lunch and Breakfast Programs comes into theschool district to provide nutritious meals to prepare all children to learn and to becomepart of the basic infrastructure of education;

WHEREAS the School District of LaCrosse believes that a healthy, well-nourished childis better prepared to learn; (Policy EF)

WHEREAS the School District of LaCrosse believes that all children need to receivenutritionally adequate meals and nutrition education; (Policy EF)

WHEREAS research has documented that a hungry child cannot learn and that a childill-fed is dulled in curiosity, lowered in stamina, and distracted from learning;

WHEREAS the School District of LaCrosse serves over 750,000 lunches and 225,000breakfasts to students each year;

WHEREAS the School Lunch and School Breakfasts Programs are not welfare programsbut education support programs;

WHEREAS federal funding in the form of block grants are subject to annualappropriations and would not assure funding for nutrition programs;

WHEREAS the School District of LaCrosse shall promote public policy which willprovide adequate funding for child nutrition programs in schools. (Policy EF)

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Senate and House ofRepresentatives of the United States should preserve the child nutrition programs for allchildren, maintain the nutrition integrity of the school nutrition programs, and provideperformance-based funding of the School Lunch Program, the School BreakfastProgram, and the Commodity Distribution Program, continuing their long support ofthese essential federal programs.

January 16, 1995

89

86

Chairman GOODLING. I wanted to thank all of you for testifyingthis morning.

Before I ask Mr. Clay to begin the questioning, I do want tomake sure that everyone understands that the Chairman does notbelieve that block granting is revenue sharing. The Chairman hasmade that point, and the Speaker has indicated to all Chairmenthat block granting is not revenue sharing. We must have goalsthat anyone must attain who receives any of the funds, and wemust have a way to assess whether they are reaching those goalsor not.

Revenue sharing, when you are trillions of dollars in debt,doesn't make very much sense.

So I would ask Mr. Clay to begin the questioning.Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.First of all, I ask unanimous consent to insert two documents in

the record, one entitled "Should Federal Food Assistance ProgramsBe Converted to Block Grants and To Develop Budget. Priorities,"and the second article is one from one of my constituents, LindyRuss. I ask unanimous consent to insert those.

Chairman GOODLING. So ordered.[The information follows:]

90

87

Older Adult Community Aotien Program ( OACAP )6420 Delmar Blvd., Suite LL10St. Louts, MO 63124 Phone: ( 314 )1193.2671

OFFICERSMann M. GoldmanPresident

Larry Lieberman110 WA President.

Barbara Smnum,2nd Vice President

Mke Lainaff

Sid Vice President

ROOn KiamonGowan ryVirginia Brown, Ph.D.

AmEgnmntalan

DIRECTORSMorris Alex, M.D.Evelyn ApplebaumDavid SerumJackSminWaxen BlumbergChaffee BrownSyhea DabneyRoberta GoldmanMary Ann GAMenSyMa KaplanBuddy LehmanmmMumb LebmanGloria LevelDavid D.O.LeonardWPMRuth madamMary Fitt% McLeanSidle MilerBuddy NevolantHaman Reiss

ROM Rya:MudMinsk SadieLaity SthainblattPearl ShermanMiriam SpectorFrieda Tugger

Mmtan'WeisHy MomAdele ZimmermanDana:mermanLimb ZWbelnen

Linda T. RuseOftlkMw

January 31, 1995

Ma. Betty LeeOffice of Congressman William Clay5251 Delmar Blvd.St. Louis, MO 63108

Dear Betty:

Following up with our convareetion this morning, pleasefind attached a statement on the potentially devastatingconsequences of the food assistance block grant end a"means test" for older Americans.

As you know, the Personal Responsibility Act cells forthe block granting of all food programs that 'ore gearedtowards low-income Amerioens Of all ages. The majorproblem with the lumping together of all programs into afood assistance block grant is that Title If/ nutritionprograms would be taken out .of the Older Amerioans. Actwhich could have dire consequences to older Amerioans,

Should you have any questions, please reel tree to call.hone this information is helpful for the .

Congressmen..

Sincerely,

nda T. RuesDirector

Lit/ey

..

,

SPONSORED BY The 81 Louis Jewish Federation and the Jewish Community Centers Association

88

The senior Nutrition Program, Title III of the OlderAmericane:Act, is an example.of a program that helps older American6, many ofwhom are frail and /or disabled, remain in the community: It is netin the best interests of our older Americans or our 0OUntrY.:tätamper with the Act: and this is why.

Thesenior nutrition programs are a fundamental :partcomprehensive service system aimed.at keeping older:AMericana%nV::home, supporting family caregivers, and avoiding Unnecessary'and',costly institutionalisation. Any significant restructuring of theOlder Americans' programs could have far reaching affects on theentire network of services for the elderly, the consequences ofwhich would cost much more than what is presently being earmarkedfor these Programs,-

..

.. .The Older Americans' Act Nutrition Program provides meals that

must meet 1/3 of the individual's recommended dietary allowances.In most instances, this meal that is eaten in a congregate settingor delivered to a person homebound is the only daily hot meal he orshe will have.

With the increasing aging population and more individualsremaining in their homes who are unable to access the congregate

.meal sites, the delivery of nutritious meals to the homeboundelderly is a critical component for their maintenance in thecommunity. Many of the "Meals on wheels" programs are delivered byvolunteers of all ages. For many seniors, the one meal per daywhich they receive is often the difference between remaining inone's own home or having to be in a institution.

There is so.-incomereetrictionfor_partieiPente:F7nutrition progreme, but state end local agencies that administer.these programs must target meals to persons most in need. Thecongregate meals program provides group meals in senior centers,churches, and other community locations. In 1992, nearly 135million meals were served to 2.5 million persons. The home -delivered meals program targets assistance to frail, hoieboundindividuals. In 1992, nearly 106 million home- delivered meals ',Org..;served to over 820.000 persons. Imagine the conaequencee to thesepeople in need if this program were out.

With- the implementation of a "means test", there 'couldpotentially be a lot of older Americans who may not qualify for ameal, but who need to have a-hot meal for their, nutritionalstandards as well as for aocialisation. with -other, people.Furthermore, many older AMeribalie that come to congregate mealsites are unable to cook for themselves. They are unable to amenssupermarkets to buy food because they lack transportation..-

92

89

Fags Zaoa .

'instituting a "mean teat" would coat the states millions Ofdollars,. thereby diverting funding for dire-et service to fundincr.for administration.

. .

A "means test" Would destroy the dignity of oldir.Alericaneandi!force them into a welfare program. We must keep in mind that.one.of..,the intents of the Older'Americans' Act was to maintain:the dignitY::of our elders by providing than with the basic need of nutrition...A 'means test" would have devastating conseguenoes,to limit.acoesm:to meal programs. Let's keep the Older Americans' Act intectf

93

90

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Fersh, it isChairman GOODLING. I am being corrected. Without objection,

rather than so ordered.Mr. CLAY. You can order it now. You have got the gavel. I would

order it if I were sitting in your place.It is my belief that we have an obligation, and it is in our na-

tional interest to provide to every child a nourishing meal. Weknow that there is a direct correlation between hunger and thelearning process. Children who come to school hungry tend to notdo as well as others. And there is no justifiable reason to reducefunding or to permit people at the State level to choose among var-ious food programs.

My questions to you are, one, if the nutrition programs are per-mitted to be administered by States in the form of block grants,how do we maintain the quality of food services?

And two, how do we ensure that those most in need will receivefood assistance?

Mr. FERSH. Mr. Clay, those are excellent questions. First, how dowe maintain quality and ensure that everyone who needs the as-sistance gets it.

Let me first say that none of us know fully how a block grantwould work over time. And I think people are constantly lookingfor ways to design this to deal with the many issues that are beingraised.

I will also say that in 1981, I served on the staff of the SenateAgriculture Committee, and at that time played a major staff rolein designing the huge cutbacks in nutrition programs that occurredat that time, cutbacks that did hurt the programs, in my view, butallowed them to continue to serve their essential function.

I have a deep concernI think this is why we are here today,many of us, and I think fairly unanimous amongst usthat theblock granting as a concept is the beginning of the end of these pro-grams in terms of their ability to either maintain quality or main-tain level of service.

We think that over time it is very difficult for these programs tohave a formula that works, that responds to all the changes in de-mographics and States from year to year, that responds to a closingof a factory within a particular school district, that allows Stateswith limited funds to maintain the quality of nutrition.

You may remember in 1981, because of the cutbacks in funding,the Reagan Administration at that time wanted to give someStates some increased flexibility on the quality of meals that wereto be served, an understandable desire because there was lessmoney to serve nutritious meals. Unfortunately, what that gavebirth to was the "ketchup as a vegetable" fiasco, whereby diminish-ing the quality of the nutrition by giving States that flexibility. Ac-tually the regulations would have allowed ketchup and pickle rel-ish to count towards the vegetable requirement.

I am deeply concerned that a block grant approach, at least anyof those that I have seen so far, would necessarily lead to eithera drop in the level of service or the quality of meals provided.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you.Ms. Hurt, I think you touched on this. The national school lunch

program in most States is a voluntary program. In 1981, when sub-

94

sidies were reduced, around 2,000 schools dropped the program.The Personal Responsibility Act would triple those cuts.

What assurances can you give us that children, particularly low-income children, will continue to receive lunches at schools underthe block grant approach?

Ms. HURT. Our concern with the PRA is that we cannot give anassurance that needy children would receive meals. Even in dis-tricts that have 8 or 9 percent of their students who qualify forthose meals, there are still 8 or 9 percent of the children.

However, if 90 percent of their students would receive no fund-ing, they would drop out of the program. And we have a numberof those in our area who have already indicated to me. So we aregoing to lose those children.

The other thing I have wondered about is would the States sendthe money to us all equally, or would all of the money stay in Mil-waukee, for example? And then I would not have the money tofund the needy children who are in my district, where I have aschool that has 20 or 30 students who might qualify for that.Would that program then not have the funding?

Mr. CLAY. Thank you.Chairman GOODLING. Mr. Greenwood.Mr. GREENWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Let me preface my remarks by saying that my wife gives one of

her lunch breaks a week to serve Meals on Wheels. And, we metwhen we were both social workers working with the youth agencyin our county. We spent a lot of years between us in the pooresthomes in our county.

I want to ask a question about the children school nutrition pro-grams. I would like you to help me sort out the kids who are par-ticipating in it, because it seems like the ability to feed your chil-dren in the morning is a pretty rudimentary threshold test ofwhether you are prepared to parent those children.

It would seem to me that some children are in homes where theirparents are incapable of providing them breakfast in the morningbecause those parents may be addicted to drugs and alcohol, notawake, not conscious, spending their money on food stamps, onother things. For those children, it would seem that not only arethose parents unable to provide breakfast, but probably not break-fast, lunch, or dinner on the weekends. Maybe they cannot provideshelter or clothing or care. Those kids probably belong in the careof some other responsible adult, foster home or adoptive home.

There are children, I suppose, who come from homes where par-ents really are adequate parents in every other way, and despiteour welfare or food programs, for some reason lack the resourcesto provide breakfast in the morning. And that makes me think ifthat is the case, what is wrong with our system that the foodstamps and the aid for dependent children isn't sufficient for themto provide breakfast in the morning.

And then it would seem to me intuitively that there are parentswho have the financial resources and capabilities but find it is con-venient to allow their children to be fed in the school programs. Tothe extent that that might be the case, tell me if it is not the case,then we are creating a demand, where one doesn't really exist andmaybe not using our resources very intelligently.

95

92

So I would like to hear from any one or all of you who work inthe school lunch and breakfast programs, how we sort these chil-dren out.

Ms. HURT. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to address that. Ithink we have to look at families today. And there are families wholeave for work, they are very capable parents and good parents butthey leave for work early in the morning. And so, you know, thechildren frequently have to fend for themselves

Mr. GREENWOOD. Let me interrupt you there. Are these parentswho leave their children unattended in the morning?

Ms. HURT. They could be. We are feeding children at all levels,middle school and high school as well.

Mr. GREENWOOD. It would seem to me that a child who is notold enough to prepare their own bowl of cereal in the morning isnot old enough to be left alone in the morning. So there is the ques-tion in my mind that immediately rises about whether that is a ne-glected child.

Ms. HURT. That is also an ideal, you know, situation, that thatwill be taken care of in all families, but we also have children whoare not hungry when they get up and get on the bus and they takea long bus trip and then they come in and that is when they areready to eat. So that provides that for them also.

Mr. GREENWOOD. For this Member of Congress, that is a prettylong stretch to suggest that it is the Federal responsibility to takecare of the child who hasn't been brought up with the notion thatyou get up and eat breakfast in the morning. I would like to hearfrom maybe someone else involved in the school lunch program,breakfast program.

Mr. BOEHLJE. I don't know that you can easily sort or provide atest that targets the students you want to target. But what is hap-pening now is that the schools are using the programs, using theeligibility standards that are currently there to basically run theprograms and provide for those students that either qualify or thatneed it or that want it, which may not be based on the qualifica-tion.

And I think you have to adopt the philosophy that that is thebasic need of the program. That is what provides the programs thatgets you to the students that have the need. And the next stepthe next philosophy is, is that a necessary or a laudable effort forthe Federal Government to provide aid to children? And I think itis. I think it is just a philosophy that you have to adopt and say,that is worthwhile and that is how we achieve it. And the programthat you have now works.

The problem is you start reducing these funds and cutting theseprograms out, which is going to happen in a significant number ofprograms, you start cutting those funds out and you are eliminat-ing a large core population of kids that need those meals in orderto be educated.

Mr. FERSH. Mr. Greenwood, if there is time, I would like to adda briefis there time?

Chairman GOODLING. Very briefly.Mr. FERSH. What I would urge to you do is talk to the teachers

and school nurses and the people in the schools about whether thisworks for them. Whatever the reasons are, I agree with you we

96

93

need to get to the underlying causes of poverty and parental re-sponsibility.

Right now we have children arriving at school hungry. Theteachers report absenteeism is down, tardiness is down, studiesshow that standardized test scores are up. So with that success Iwould suggest we look at the results and maintain this programuntil we are clear that we can deal with the underlying conditionsin some other way.

Chairman GOODLING. Mr. Kildee.Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow up on the questions of Mr.

Clay, because this is my 19th year on this committee. I have seentwo attempts under two different Presidents before to cut theseschool lunch programs, and have seen the very negative effectsfrom those attempts, and the fact of those cuts.

Today's schools receive funds to pay for the overall cost of thefood program, as well as money for the free and reduced pricemeals. The Republican proposal would prohibit serving subsidizedmeals to students whose family income is 140 to 170 percent overpoverty.

As you mentioned, in 1981-1982, when smaller cuts were madeunder President Reaganand these are facts, not just specula-tionwhen smaller cuts were made under President Reagan, atleast 1,100 schools dropped their programs entirely; 350,000 stu-dents were no longer served. And they dropped their programs be-cause of a basic principle, economic principle, economy of scale,when that number of students were not being subsidized, theywere not buying, and then the free and reduced people then weredeprived because the school dropped the program because the econ-omy of scale made it difficult for them to keep the program.

Do you have any idea what the results might be under the Ithink more draconian proposal of the Republicans? Maybe can youstart at that end of the table.

Ms. HURT. We have estimated that as many as 40,000 of the93,000 schools might drop out of this program, which would affectas many as 10 million children. So we take that from a study thatwas done by the Library of Congress, and also from our own experi-ence back in 1981 with what happened with those cuts.

Mr. KILDEE. Anyone else? From the archdiocese.Mr. TEMPLE-WEST. It is an enormous question you are asking.

We serve mainly needy children. Where we would see this is notso much in the reduction of money, but in the change of philosophyof the program.

If this program is now made a welfare program and is so labeled,our schools are going to question why we are teaching children toreceive welfare through this meal program. And it is going to bea real philosophical problem for our schools to accept.

I would suspect that many of our schools that have 30, 40, 50or more percent of full-price children will drop out of the program.And we figure thatI mean, since most of our schools are up inthe 70 or 80 percent free, we would lose about eight or nineschools.

92-373 - 95 - 4 97

94

But it would have a chilling effect. The whole rationale of thiswhole program is set on its ear by this. So schools will really ques-tion what we are doing, perpetuating children on welfare.

Mr. KILDEE. You raise a good point. It is not just a welfare pro-gram, to use that term, because when Congress enacted this pro-gram after World War II, one of the driving reasons was that wediscovered that young men mostly at that time were being inductedinto the armed forces. Many could not pass their physical veryoften for the reason that when they were in their formative yearsthey did not have good nutrition. So it was really in the nationalinterest, the defense interest.

So there was more than just the welfare aspect of this. It wasa question of the public health being involved. And that is the his-tory of the school lunch program.

I knowI don't know what the numbers are exactly, but I know,just going from what has happened in the past, that there will beschools dropping out and students not being served if this is en-acted.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.Chairman GOODLING. I can't miss the opportunity to say that

since my friendand maybe one of the only friends I have in theCongress of the United Statesused the word Republican severaltimes, I must say that when they were in the Majority, they dida lousy job of explaining the importance of this. It took a Repub-lican to make them see the light.

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, if I may say, I did not mean to bepartisan. I was going to say, in the past we could always say ad-ministration. So I didn't know how to characterize this. But it didnot come from us.

Chairman GOODLING. That is all right. You gave me the oppor-tunity to get that.

Mr. KILDEE. And you are my good friend.Chairman GOODLING. Mr. Ballenger?Mr. McKeon.Mr. MCKEON. Thank you, Mr. Chaiiman. I want to be your

friend, too. It is great to have the Chairman as your friend.Mr. Boehlje, I want to commend you for your efforts. I served on

a school board for nine years, and a friend told me one time thatanybody serving on a school board, there is a special place in heav-en for you. So you are doing good work.

We all agree, I think, that we need nutrition, and we all agreethat there is excessive bureaucracy. You can look at that bookthere and one of the goals is to cut it by a quarter of an inch. Iwould like to cut it out, maybe make it one page.

I think that each of you are very capable, and the members ofthe school boards that you represent across the country, Mr.Boehlje, I think are probably very capable people.

It disturbs me that we think that we have to run programs fromWashington, that local school boards probably love our childrenless than we do here in Washington. I get the feeling that if it isnot done from here, it won't happen because people in States andin communities don't love children.

You know, there is no free lunch. We are not giving these chil-dren lunch. We have a debt of $5 trillion. They are going to be the

98

95

ones paying for it. But they are going to pay for it after interesthas been piled on years down the line and after they are out ofschool. They will be paying for these lunches. They are not free.

I guess my concern is that one of the reasons for the proposedblock grants isn't to give it to the children. It is to make the pro-grams more efficient, to get them out closer to the children, admin-istered closer to the children. I keep saying children. I know thisworks for senior citizens, too, where we have these hot lunches andhot meals provided.

But how do we get rid of this bureaucracy if we don't do some-thing like this? I think this is an attempt to eliminate tiers of bu-reaucracy, not to deprive people of nutrition. How else would youdo that?

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. McKeon, would you yield on this point?This money goes directly to the schools. It does not gohow will

getting closer to the kids by getting closer to the States? If it goesto the States and they decide what to do with it

Mr. MCKEON. It doesn't go directly to the schools. I have beento the schools. I have talked to the people who provide thoselunches. They have to fill out forms just like you said. You haveto stand at the head of the line and say, "Take another item." Thenyou have to fill out a form to provide that.

All of that is administered out of Washington. We require it.Mr. MARTINEZ. It goes directly to the schools, where now we are

talking about block grants that are going to the States.Chairman GOODLING. This is a period for interaction between the

Member and the panel.Mr. MCKEON. You and I will talk later.Mr. BOEHLJE. One of the problems is we see absolutely no benefit

in shoving the same administrative load to the State and permit-ting them to set up a whole new level of regulations to replace theregulations that you say are going to be reduced from the Federallevel by the block-granting concept.

But the bigger issue is that the whole issue of entitlements andthe fact that this is going to reduce the number of dollars just vir-tually guaranteed, that are going to come into the program for chil-dren. And they are going to have to be made up at the local level.

That is the bottom line as far as school districts are concerned.And depending on the balancing process that you go through as aschool board member on what you are going to do with your aca-demic programs and how many dollars you have to spend and howmany students you have that qualify for lunches now or the freeand reduced breakfast, you have to decide whether you can affordto keep this program going or not.

And that is what we see happening, is those school districts, ina responsible decision-making process, saying, We are only servingX number of children here, with this program, this program servesmore children, so we are going to factor this program, and it maybe the lunch or the school meal program that loses.

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you.Chairman GOODLING. You have some time.Mr. MCKEON. Great. I would bypass the States and go right to

the local school boards. Are you saying that the local school board

99

96

would make the decision that they would rather do somethingother than the nutrition program?

Mr. BOEHLJE. If you are talking about the same funds coming tothe local school board, that is great.

Mr. MCKEON. If you had the same funds, $10 going right to theschool board but didn't have to go through some of the same work,some of the same paper filling out, all of those requirements,wouldn't that save money?

Mr. BOEHLJE. Yes, I think that is a sound concept. That is notwhat is proposed in the legislation, though, as I understand it.

Mr. MCKEON. But we can make changes in legislation. That iswhy we are doing this.

Mr. BOEHLJE. I like that approach. I think that is a sound con-cept, yes.

Mr. FERSH. I think there is a consensus about paperwork andoverregulation and over-auditing. Some of that came out of con-cerns at the Federal level about accountability. And there is a bal-ance in terms of checking eligibility and making sure nutritionstandards are met and so on.

I think the consensus here is, let's reduce the paperwork, but theconcern is the ending of the predictable entitlement funding allowspeople to respond to every child and every elderly person who isin need. I think that is what the debate is about, notI think ev-eryone agrees we should simplify the system.

Chairman GOODLING. Mr. Roemer.Mr. ROEMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.What worries me as we debate this is that we have two potential

trends here, one very real and one a potential in terms of turningthis into a block grant. The real trend is that more and more chil-dren in this country are being born into poverty.

Yesterday in both The New York Times and in The WashingtonPost, we read that there are now 25 percent of children in povertyin this country under the age of six. One out of every four childrenare in poverty under the age of six in the United States of America.

What do we do to address that?Certainly some of these programs help us address that. But how

do we improve on these programs if we are not going to turn theminto a block grant, which many of you make compelling testimonynot to do, what do we do to allow the schools and the States moreflexibility?

I would first turn to you, Mr. Fersh. In your testimony you saidthat you are very concerned about the WIC program. I am too. Ithink it is one of the best government programs going. You alsosaid that you wouldit creates flexibility to the States, and youare not for turning this into a block grant.

What specifically would you do to increase flexibility at the locallevel?

Mr. FERSH. Thank you for that question, Mr. Roemer. I wouldsimply say, it is in the testimony, I am in agreement with the wit-nesses here. We could have a consolidation of all school-based pro-grams. Why should Marilyn Hurt have to fill out a separate set offorms to feed kids in the summer for five weeks when they are thesame kids she is feeding all year.

1 0 C)

97

The same would be true if there is an after-school program.There is a growing movement to provide after-school care, which Ithink is one of the linchpins on how we deal with poverty in thiscountry. We need to look at nutrition programs as building blockstoward empowerment of individuals and families.

There is no better draw than to feed kids. They will show up,they will be attentive. If we can begin to link these after-schoolprograms and crime prevention programs and community-buildingprograms, then I think we begin to get a handle on the underlyingproblems in this country.

No one is saying, "Feed kids and they won't be hungry" and wewon't do anything else about them. We too in the nutrition commu-nity feel frustrated about the continuing problems of poverty inthis country. So we must begin to get to the underlying solution.

I think what we are suggesting to you is that elimination ofthese programs or hurting them will only make the job more dif-ficult down the road.

These nutrition programs are key to making sure kids arehealthy, making sure they are feeling nurtured, making sure thatkids actually show up and participate in other programs that beginto have them make changes in their lives and changes in their fu-tures.

Mr. ROEMER. In addition to the suggestion you just made, howdo we begin to integrate this nutrition program in after-school pro-grams or getting the child to stay after school and then gettingtheir parent to come in and do mentoring and skill and trainingand so forth too? Have you been involved in these integration ef-forts?

Mr. FERSH. Absolutely. Some are documented in our testimony.And we have a project funded by an education funder, the AndyCasey Foundation, to begin to document the model programs thatare beginning to grow across the country. People do not want tosimply continue to hand out benefits to people and not see underly-ing changes.

But we cannot simply say, Okay, you know, it has not been work-ing; we are going to throw out what we have. What we are suggest-ing is we document the programs, the local genius, it is all out oflocal people, it needs to be documented, but what they are sayinguniformly to us is, Please, keep our ability to feed these kids as afundamental building block in how we bring them in and buildthese other services.

I would be delighted to provide other examples for the record.There is an example in Pennsylvania. There is an example inWashington of a summer feeding program that turned around kidsin the summer months and now they are running a summer youthprogram.

[The information follows:]

101

98

CENTER ON BUDGETAND POLICY PRIORITIES

Revised lanuary 27, 1995

SHOULD FEDERAL FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAMSBE CONVERTED TO BLOCK GRANTS?

Introduction

Proposals to convert federal food assistance programs into block grants willreceive active consideration in coming months. Two principal reasons are often givenfor block-granting food assistance programs. Block grants are seen as a way of

increasing state flexibility in administering these programs. Block grant proposals also

are defended as allowing spending on food assistance to be reduced through loweradministrative costs.

Two major food block grant proposals currently are under consideration. One iscontained in the Personal Responsibility Act (PRA), the welfare bill contained in the"Contract with America." The other proposal was recently developed by a group ofRepublican governors and is still being refined.

These proposals share a broad framework. Both would terminateall domesticfood assistance programs, including food stamps, the National School Lunch Program,and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children(WIC). In their place, the federal government would provide block grants to states.States could use the funds to provide food assistance in whatever form they saw fit,including the provision of cash grants that might be used for purposes other than food

purchases.

The PRA proposal would set a cap on annual appropriations for the block grant;,Congress could appropriate less, but not more. In the first year, this cap would be set

/ 10 percent below the amount that existing food assistance programs are projected to

cost. The cap would be adjusted each year for changes in population and food pricesbut not for changes in unemployment, poverty, or school enrollment. Over time, the

cap would fall steadily farther behind what the food programs would cost undercurrent law. The percentage share of block grant funds each state would receive would

equal the state's share of the low-income population nationwide. The PRA also wouldimpose various restrictions on how states could spend the block grant funds.

Under the proposal developed by the group of Republican governors, the totalamount of federal funds allocated to states each year would equal the amountexpended in the food assistance programs in fiscal year 1994, adjusted for food price

777 North Capitol 5trect NC. Suite 705. Washington. DC 20002 Tel: 202408-1080 Fax 202-408-1056Rnhort stri n F.*aculivo

102

99

inflation. Each state's share of the federal block grant appropriation would equal itspercentage share of federal food assistance expenditures in fiscal year 1999.

Under both the PRA proposal and the Republican governors proposal, a keyfeature of entitlement programs like the food stamp and school lunch programs thatfamilies and individuals who meet the programs' eligibility criteria are entitled tobenefits would be removed. If the amount of block grant funds a state received wasinsufficient to serve all eligible families or children who applied, some would be turnedaway or the level of benefits would be cut.

In addition, both proposals would result in substantial reductions in federalfunding for food assistance programs compared to the amounts that would beprovided under current law. The PRA block grant would result in a reduction of atleast $27 billion over the next five years, while the governors' proposal would cut atleast $9.7 billion. The cuts would be far larger if a recession occurred; for example, ifthe governors' proposal had been enacted five years ago before unemployment beganto rise, the loss in federal food assistance funds would have been nearly 30 percent lastyear. Under both bills, the cuts would grow larger over time.

An examination of the effects of converting food assistance programs into blockgrants indicates this approach would have far-reaching effects. Some of these effectsare probably not intended by the proposals' authors, but the effects are nonethelessreal. In three principal respects, the proposals would be disadvantageous for bothstates and low-income families.

A food assistance block grant would not respond to increased needduring economic downturns.

Funds under a food block grant would be allocated among states inaccordance with a formula that was unavoidably based on outdated data.As a result, the distribution of funds among states would be inequitable;some states would receive too little relative to other states, while otherstates would receive too much. Some states, especially those experiencingeconomic slumps, would emerge as big losers.

Funding levels would probably decline below the levels that would beprovided under current law by larger amounts than is commonlyunderstood. Under both proposals, block grant funding levels would notautomatically respond to increases in poverty during recessions, increasesin school enrollment that result in more children needing school lunchesand breakfasts, or increases in the number of low-income childrenenrolled in child care institutions and needing meals at these institutions.School enrollment is projected to rise in coming years. Child care

103

100

enrollment also is expected to increase as more women are moved fromwelfare to work and the entry of mothers into the labor force continues.In addition, block grant funding levels could be reduced further in theCongressional appropriations process.

For these reasons, low-income families, children, and elderly people are likely toface substantial reductions in food assistance under the block grant proposals. States inturn, are likely to face strong pressures to use state funds to help fill the gaps and avertserious increases in hunger.

It should be noted that more state flexibility can be provided in existing foodassistance programs without converting the programs to block grants. In addition, ifCongress wishes to reduce the cost of these programs, that can be accomplishedwithout resorting to a block grant. In short, many of the perceived benefits of a blockgrant can be secured without its serious adverse consequences.

This analysis examines some of the basic problems raised by block-granting foodassistance programs: lack of responsiveness to recessions, inequities in the allocation offunds among the states, and risks that the funding reductions would grow extremelylarge when decisions are made in the federal appropriations process. The analysis alsoexamines the effects of block-granting several key food assistance programs, includingthe food stamp, child nutrition, and WIC programs. The paper concludes with a briefdiscussion of how flexibility can be increased and costs reduced, if that is desired,without resorting to a block grant approach.

The Problem of Recession

Most of the larger food assistance programs including the food stamp, schoollunch, and school breakfast programs are entitlements. This means the programsprovide benefits to any low-income household or child who applies and meets the pro-grams' eligibility conditions. These programs expand during recessions as unemploy-ment rises and the number of low-income people qualifying for food stamps and freeschool meals grows. For example, between June 1990 and June 1992, as the nationalunemployment rate climbed from 5.1 percent to 7.7 percent, the number of peoplereceiving food stamps rose by more than five million. Similarly, the average number oflow-income children receiving free school lunches each month climbed by more thanone million between fiscal year 1990 and fiscal year 1992.

Thus when poverty rises as it does during recessions these programsexpand. When poverty subsequently declines as it does during most economicrecoveries the programs tend to contract. This funding structure has proved crucialto the success of these programs in reducing hunger in the United States.

3

10 4 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

101

This feature would be lost under a block grant, however, as the automaticprovision of additional federal resources during recessions would end. A fixed amount

would be provided to a state at the start of a year. If unemployment subsequently rose,

the state would have to bear 100 percent of any additional food assistance costs itself.'

This would pose serious problems for states. State revenues shrink duringeconomic downturns, and many state programs are cut. Under a block grant structure,states would be forced to choose between raising taxes (or cutting other programs more

deeply in recessions) to address the mounting needs for food assistance among the poor

or instituting across-the-board benefit cuts, making some categories of needy families

and children ineligible for the rest of the year, or placing poor families that recently lost

their jobs and others newly applying for aid on waiting lists for food aid. Poor families

and elderly individuals applying in the final months of the fiscal year could be denied

assistance. Two-parent families the group whose participation in food assistanceprograms rises most sharply in recessions could be affected with particular severity.

The loss of the automatic increase in federal funding during a recession wouldhave another adverse effect as well. It could weaken the national and state economies.

The food stamp program, and to a lesser extent the free meals provided low-incomechildren by the school food programs, function as what economists call "automaticstabilizers" federal programs that moderate economic downturns by infusing morepurchasing power into state and local economies when recession sets in. The food

stamp program is one of the more important automatic stabilizers in the federalgovernment's recession-fighting arsenal. Under a block grant structure, the automatic

stabilizer role played by these programs would be lost. Converting these programs to

block grants that fail to respond to recessions consequently is likely to contribute to

making recessions somewhat deeper and more protracted.

Misallocation of Funds among States

These problems are aggravated by another major shortcoming of a block grant

structure it would seriously misallocate funds among states. Any formulaused to

allocate block grant funds among states would necessarily be based on data for a year

In theory, Congress could pass a supplemental appropriation to help meet this increased need. In

practice, this would be difficult to do. If the block grant were a discretionary program, supplemental

funding for the block grant would be barred if overall spending for discretionary programs were already at

the discretionary spending ceiling. Supplemental funding also would be problematic if the full amount

authorized for the block grant had already been appropriated. If the block grant were acapped

entitlement, the cap would have to be raised before any additional funds could be appropriated and the

cost of doing so would have to be offset by tax increases or cuts in other entitlement programs.

4

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

105

102

in the past; the formula would not be able to reflect economic and demographicchanges since that time.

For example, the food block grant proposal recently developed by the group ofRepublican governors would distribute block grant funds based on each state'spercentage share of federal food assistance expenditures in fiscal year 1994. As theyears pass and 1994 recedes farther into the past, the state-by-state distribution of foodassistance expenditures in 1994 will become an increasingly poor measure of currentneed among the states. The resulting inequities will become particularly acute duringrecessions when some states suffer sharp increases in unemployment while others donot. States whose economies have grown robustly since 1994 could receive more fundsthan warranted, while states where economic conditions have deteriorated wouldreceive too little.

The Republican governors' proposal illustrates how serious this problem is.Suppose the proposal had been enacted five years ago and based on federalexpenditures in fiscal year 1989 rather than expenditures in 1994. Had that occurred,the amount of federal funding distributed for food assistance programs last year wouldhave been 29 percent or $10 billion lower than the amount actually provided.Some 35 states would have lost at least one-fifth of their federal nutrition funding.California and Florida would have lost almost half of the federal food aid provided intheir states. While these states were losing heavily, however, one state would havereceived more federal money than it actually got last year.

These effects would have occurred because in the years after 1989,unemployment climbed substantially in some states, and more people in the hard-hitstates became poor and applied for food aid. In addition, the populations of somestates grew sharply. Since these economic and demographic changes were not uniformacross the states, the increase in unemployment and poverty since 1989 varied greatlyamong states. As a result, the proposed block grant would have affected some stateswith far greater adversity than others.

Of particular concern is the fact that the states hardest hit by a recession wouldbe subject to a "double whammy." They would receive an insufficient amount offederal funds both because the overall level of federal funding nationally would beinadequate (since the federal funding level would not automatically rise with arecession) and because the formula for allocating federal funds among states would notrecognize the depth of the downturn in hard-hit states. In addition, the states hithardest by the recession would generally face large declines in state revenues and beamong the states least able to provide state funds to respond to the additional need thedownturn created.

5

106

103

There is no good answer to this problem: any formula for allocating block grantfunds among the states will necessarily create serious equity problems. If the formulagives each state the same percentage of food assistance funds it currently receives (asthe Republican governors' proposal does), the formula will fail to recognize differencesthat develop among states in coming years in unemployment and wage levels,population growth, and other demographic changes. If the formula attempts to adjustfor such changes in economic and demographic factors, it still will be out-of-date. Thelatest Census data on the extent of poverty on a state-by-state basis are generally threeto four years old.' The formula thus would always reflect the economic anddemographic conditions that prevailed several years earlier.

The allocation formula in the PRA food block grant uses a different approach butproduces equally unacceptable results. Under this formula, too, some states would loselarge sums even if Congress appropriated the full amount authorized for the blockgrant, while other states would gain. A U.S. Department of Agriculture analysis found,for example, that if the PRA food block grant proposal were in effect in fiscal year 1996and the block grant were fully funded, Texas would lose an estimated 30 percent of itsfood assistance funds, while California would gain 16 percent. If Congressappropriated less than the full amount authorized (a likely scenario, as explainedbelow), all states might lose, with some states suffering much more severe cuts thanothers.

Curiously, some of the states that fare worst under the allocation formula in thegovernors' proposal do best under the PRA allocation formula, and vice versa.(California is art example of one such state.) Other states, like Texas and Florida, loseheavily under both formulas. This underscores the arbitrary nature of these formulas.It simply is not possible to design a state-by-state funding formula that accuratelyreflects current need.

Funding Reductions

Another feature of both proposals is that they entail large reductions in federalfood assistance funding. Under the Personal Responsibility Act, funding would be atleast $27 billion lower over the next five years than under current law. The amount

If block grant funding allocations for fiscal year 1996 were being determined this spring, the latestavailable Census data on poverty and income would be data for 1993. Moreover, the data the CensusBureau issues annually on poverty and income are reliable only for the nation as a whale and for some largestates. To secure reliable data covering all states, the Census Bureau must combine data for at least twoyears. Currently, the latest reliable poverty and income data that cover all states are combined data for1992 and 1993. This is why the state-by-state poverty and income data used in a formula for allocatingblock grant funds among states will necessarily be three to five years out of date.

6

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

107

104

IS FOOD ASSISTANCE SPENDING OUT OF CONTROL?

In fiscal year 1995, spending on domestic food assistance is estimated to consume 2.4

percent of federal outlays, according to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) data. Spending

on those programs is expected to decline slightly as a share of total spending in future years,

the CBO projections show.

Overall spending on entitlements is projected to grow rapidly in coming years both as

a percentage of the budget and a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product. But the food

assistance programs are not among the factors contributing to that development.

2000

3100

17 2000

Food Asalstanc and the Federal Budget

,

100

foul FN.nl twolom.00 foomOot

'Nero Doak rood O.Orooro

ilia! MR III ION 00 101c; 1022 11105 10;00 72000 ]003 OOM

eadvioseroog wooroom dfl. O arms,.Sown Compoamoul BN.I06 pry... luma -t

that was cut would tend to grow over time, reaching $5.8 billion in fiscal year 2000.3

Under the Republican governors' proposal, states would lose at least $9.7 billion over

these same five years. Here, too, the cuts generally would enlarge with each passing

This estimate is based on Congressional Budget Office projections of what the food assistance programs

will cost under current law. If OMB estimates are used instead, the cuts caused by the food block grants are

larger,

7

108

105

year; they would equal $2.9 billion by fiscal year 2000. And eventually, the reductionunder the governors' proposal could exceed the cut under the PRA.

Furthermore these figures are likely to understate the depth of the reductions.These figures assume Congress would appropriate the maximum amount allowable forthe block grants. As discussed below, this is not likely to be the case, especially for thePRA grant.

These figures also assume no recession occurs. As noted, the block grantfunding levels would not rise if the number of poor families increased during arecession. Since, under current law, federal food assistance funding does rise whenrecession sets in, the size of the cuts caused by a block grant would become much largerin the event of a recession. Recall that if the Republican governors' proposal had beenenacted five years ago and block grant funding were set equal to overall federal foodassistance expenditures in fiscal year 1989, adjusted for inflation, the amount of federalfood aid funding provided in fiscal year 1994 would have been $10 billion lower than itactually was. The onset of recession and the accompanying increase in poverty overthis period accounts for much of the difference between the amount of funds actuallyexpended last year and the much smaller amount that would have been providedunder the block grant.

Another reason the block grants would lead to large decreases in assistance isthat they make no adjustment in funding levels to reflect increases in school enrollmentor in the number of children in child care settings. The U.S. Department of Educationprojects the number of children in grades K through 12 will rise more than eightpercent over the next five years. This will increase the number of children eatingschool lunches and breakfasts, a development that will be accommodated under thecurrent funding structure for the school food programs but not under a block grant.Similarly, the number of low-income children enrolled in child care institutions andqualifying for meals under the child and adult care food program is expected to rise asstates move more poor mothers from welfare to work and the trend of more womenentering the labor force continues.

The lack of any recognition of these factors also is another reason the formula forallocating block grant funds among the states would fail to match funds with currentneeds. A state in which school enrollment rises will be shortchanged, while a state inwhich school enrollment falls may receive excessive funding.

Funding Levels for Block Grants Likely to be Reduced

One other factor also needs to be taken into account the funding levels in theproposed food block grants essentially represent ceilings on the total amounts that

8

109

106

could be appropriated for these programs. The actual amounts appropriated could be

lower and the cuts deeper as a result.

If a food block grant is structured as a discretionary program (i.e., as a non-entitlement program) as it would be under the PRA, the amount actually appropriated

would likely be lower perhaps much lower than the appropriations ceilingestablished for the block grant. Appropriations for most discretionary programs fallbelow the appropriations ceilings set for these programs. And with Congress about totighten the already-austere expenditure caps that govern the total amount that can be

spent on discretionary programs while raising spending on defense at the same timedomestic discretionary programs will be squeezed hard in the years ahead. A food

block grant described to governors as a five percent cut with the five percentreflecting the amount that the appropriations ceiling for the block grant falls below

projected food assistance costs under current law could readily turn into a 20 percent

or 30 percent cut in the next several years when Congress writes the appropriations

bills.'

In an effort to address this last issue, the Republican governors' proposalapparently would make the food block grant a "capped entitlement" to states. Families

and children that meet a state's eligibility criteria would have no entitlement to benefits

and could be served only if sufficient funds had been provided to the state. But states

would be entitled to their respective shares of a designated amount of federal fundseach year. Structuring the block grant as a capped entitlement might lessen thelikelihood that block grant funds would be cut back sharply in the federalappropriations process. Contrary to the expectations of some governors involved indeveloping this proposal, however, making the block grant a capped entitlement would

not fully resolve this problem. Congress can appropriate less than the amount called

for under the law establishing a capped entitlement and has occasionally done so in thepast. Moreover, Congress can lower the cap on the entitlement at any time and can

take such action through the appropriations process. Indeed, if the appropriationscommittees include in an appropriations bill a provision lowering the cap on a capped

entitlement, these committees can use the resulting savings to help comply with thetight spending ceilings on total discretionary spending or to free up funds so they can

boost appropriations for other, more politically potent programs. The issues raised by

structuring a block grant as a capped entitlement are discussed further in the box on the

next page.

One additional problem is that states frequently might not know until October 1(or even later) how

much block grant funding they would receive for the fiscal year starting October I. Congressional

appropriations battles typically are not over and funding levels not known much before October 1.

Often these issues are not settled until November or December. This would make it difficult for states to

plan and operate their food assistance programs efficiently.

9

1 1 0

107

In coming years as efforts are made to balance the budget, block grantsproviding benefits to low-income people are likely to fare poorly in the intense

competition in the appropriations committees for a shrinking pot of funds. A food

block grant for the poor especially one in which much of the assistance is providedin cash that can be used for purposes other than food purchases is not likely to fare

well when it must compete with defense programs and programs protected by

CAPPED ENTITLEMENTS TO STATES

Some policyma kers may believe a solution to the funding problems described here is

to structure a food assistance block grant as a "capped entitlement" rather than a non-entitlement (or discretionary) program. Under a capped entitlement, states would be entitled

to their respective shares of a fixed amount of federal funding. For example, if $35 billion a

year were provided for a capped food assistance entitlement, each state would be entitled to

its respective share (in accordance with a funding formula) of the 135 billion. Under most

proposals for capped entitlements, low-income families as distinguished from stateswould not be entitled to benefits. As a result, the amount of federal funding provided in a

state would not rise if need increased in the state and more families applied for food

assistance.

Although it may sound attractive at first blush, this approach would dolittle to ad-

dress the problems described here. Under the capped entitlement approach, a state's federal

funding would remain fixed for the year, just as it would if a block grant werestructured as a

discretionary program. A state's funding level would not rise if a recession set in or the

number of applicants in a state climbed for other reasons. States still would have toreject the

new applicants, cut benefits, or meet these additional needs entirely with state funds.

In addition, the fixed amount of federal funding available under a capped entitlement

would have to be allocated among states in accordance with a funding formula. All of the

problems described here regarding the inequities created by funding formulas would holdtrue. Some states would receive too much, while others would get too little.

Finally, in recent decades, capped entitlements have not fared better than non-entitlement programs in funding battles. Total appropriations for low-income programs thatare capped entitlements have declined nearly 20 percent since 1981, afteradjusting for

inflation. Federal funding for the largest capped entitlement program serving low-incomefamilies the Social Services Block Grant has declined 45 percent since 1981 in inflation-

adjusted term. By contrast, total appropriations for low-income non-entitlement programsdeclined seven percent over this period, after adjusting for inflation. Congress may, and onoccasion, has appropriated less for a capped entitlement than the amount specified in the

authorizing legislation establishing the program. In coming years, as deficit-reductionpressures mount, the chances that some capped entitlements will not be fully funded willincrease. Indeed, under federal budget rules, if the cap on a capped entitlement is lowered in

an appropriations bill, the appropriations committees may use the savings tohelp meet the

tight spending caps under which these committees have to operate.

10

,

BEST COPYAVAILABLE

108

powerful constituencies such as education programs, programs for veterans, and thelike. In addition, if food assistance programs are converted to a block grant, it will notbe possible to describe the specific effects of a proposed reduction in funding on poorfamilies and elderly people when the reduction is being debated. In short, the fundinglevel for a food assistance block grant is likely to erode substantially over time.

It also should be noted that block-granting these programs appears unlikely togenerate large administrative savings. The block grant proposals would meld into asingle grant a program administered by state health departments (WIC), a program runby state welfare departments (food stamps), and programs administered by state edu-cation departments (the school food programs). Schoolchildren would continue toreceive school meals at school. For WIC-type assistance to maintain its emphasis onpreventive health care, it would need to continue being provided at health clinics; partof WIC's beneficial impact stems from the fact that it is coordinated with prenatal andpediatric care and acts as a magnet that draws women and infants into health facilitiesfor needed health visits. The food stamp program is administered by county welfaredepartments and coordinated with public assistance programs like AFDC; it cannot berun either by schools or health clinics. It is difficult to see how large administrativeefficiencies could be realized by combining such disparate programs into a block grantwhen different agencies will continue to operate them.

Furthermore, the food assistance programs already are integrated with oneanother to a significant extent. For example, children in families that receive foodstamps automatically meet financial eligibility requirements for WIC and childnutrition programs, reducing the paperwork required in the latter programs. Nor dothese programs have large federal overhead that could be eliminated by turningadministration over to the states. Federal costs for administrating domestic foodassistance programs equal less than one percent of the programs' overall budgets.

Administrative efficiencies are likely to be modest. The bulk of the savingswould have to be achieved by reducing benefits.

Additional Issues Raised by Proposals to Convert Particular Food Programs intoBlock Grants

Examination of the three principal food assistance programs food stamps,school food programs, and WIC shows each would experience problems if mergedinto a block grant.

11

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

109

Food Stamps

Some problems involved with block-granting food stamps, such as the loss of theprogram's ability to respond immediately to increases in need during recessions, aredescribed above. An additional set of issues stems from the fact that the national foodstamp benefit structure would disappear under a block grant.

Dismantling the benefit structure would threaten the program's ability tomoderate the large differences among states in the AFDC benefits provided to poorchildren. Under the current system, the food stamp benefits provided to AFDCfamilies are larger in states paying low AFDC benefits than in states paying higherbenefits, since a family's food stamp benefit level depends on its income. This featureof the food stamp program is particularly important for poor states with limited fiscalcapacity and for poor children in these states.

For example, the AFDC benefit level in Mississippi is one-sixth the level inConnecticut; but when food stamps are taken to account, the ratio falls from 6:1 to 2:1.Converting the food stamp program to a block grant and eliminating the nationalbenefit structure could lessen the program's effectiveness in moderating thesedisparities

In addition,' lock-granting the food stamp program would result in the loss ofthe only national benefit floor under poor children. Of particular note is the fact thatthe food stamp program combines poor children and the elderly poor in a singlebenefit structure; it thereby overcomes the typical pattern under which the elderlyreceive larger benefits than children do. If the program is block-granted and thenational benefit structure is dismantled, poor children are likely to lose this importantprotection in many. states. Their benefits are likely to be cut more deeply over timethan if they and the elderly remain in a single benefit structure under which reducingbenefits for children generally means cutting them for the elderly as well.

It also is of interest that the national food stamp benefit structure was institutedunder President Richard Nixon, with broad bipartisan support. The NixonAdministration and Congress took this step when large disparities emerged amongstates in food stamp benefit structures, and studies found hunger to be a seriousproblem in many areas. Prior to establishment of the national benefit structure, somestates denied food stamps to families with incomes as low as half the poverty line as

several states still do today in AFDC even though food stamps were federallyfunded.

Lastly, block-granting the food stamp program is unlikely to yield largeadministrative savings. The food stamp program's administrative budget is lean. Infiscal year 1993, federal and state administrative costs comprised 12.3 percent of the

12

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

113

110

BASIC FACTS ABOUT THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM

Food stamp benefits are modest. in fiscal year 1994, the program provided anaverage benefit of $69 per person per month, or 76 cents per person per meal. Eventhe maximum food stamp benefit received by fewer than 23 percent ofhouseholds is $3S6 for a family of four, or $1.06 per person per meal.

The food stamp program is well-targeted. In 1992, the latest year for which thesedata are available, nearly all food stamp benefits 97 percent went tohouseholds with incomes at or below the poverty line. Households with incomesbelow half of the poverty line received 56 percent of food stamp benefits. Theaverage income of a food stamp household was $481 a month or $5,772 a year. Bycomparison, the poverty line applied in 1992 was $928 a month $11,140 a year

for a family of three.'

Approximately $9 of every $10 spent for food stamp benefits 89 percent wereprovided to households with children, elderly, or disabled people. Families withchildren received 82 percent of food stamp benefits. Children, themselves,constituted 52 percent of all food stamp participants. Some 13 million childrenreceived food stamps in an average month in 1992.

Households with earnings accounted for 20 percent of food stamp households in1992. A significant number of other food stamp households included memberswho had recently become unemployed. Just 40 percent of food stamp householdsreceived any income from AFDC.

Half of all food stamp households leave the program within six months. Two-thirds leave within one year.

USDA research has found that food purchases and nutrient consumption are higherwith food stamps than with an equivalent amount of cash.

The most recent detailed data available on many of these points is from the USDA studyCharacteristics of Food Stamp Households, Summer 1992.

program's total budget. Even if significant administrative savings could be achieved,they would constitute only a small fraction of the federal funds that states would loseunder the block grant proposals.

For example, if food stamp administrative costs were cut a fifth a largeproportion total program costs would be reduced just two to three percent. This iswell below the level of reductions entailed under the proposed food block grants.

13

114

111

Savings would have to be achieved primarily through reductions in food assistance toneedy households.

One related problem should be noted. Food stamps are currently accepted inany state. Poor families living near a state line may shop in the neighboring state totake advantage of lower food prices. In addition, poor migrant farmworker familiescrossing state lines to seek work can use food stamps issued to them in one state topurchase food in the new state they enter. If the food stamp program is block-grantedand ends as a national program, poor families entering a new state to seek work orshopping in a store in a neighboring state to take advantage of lower food pricesmay not be able to use their food stamps there. In order for needy households to beable to use food stamps across state lines, states may need to set up complicated andcostly interstate administrative mechanisms.

Block-Granting Child Nutrition Programs

Many of the problems posed by block granting the food stamp program alsoapply to converting the principal child nutrition programs to a block grant. The largestof these programs the school lunch and breakfast programs and the child and adultcare food program respond automatically to rising unemployment and poverty justas the food stamp program does. When more low-income children apply for free mealsat schools and child care centers, federal support for these programs increases. Thiswould no longer occur under a block grant. States experiencing economic downturnsor significant increases in school or child care enrolment would suffer; the federalfunding they receive would fail to keep pace with need as the number of low-incomechildren seeking meals at school or in child care settings increased.

FOOD PURCHASES AND FOOD STAMP CASH-OUT

Replacing the current food assistance programs with a block grant is likely to result inmany states converting food stamp assistance to cash payments. During the late 1980s,USDA conducted four demonstration projects to test the effect of "cashing out" food stampbenefits. The researchers who evaluated these projects for USDA concluded that foodexpenditures decline between 20 and 25 cents for each dollar of benefits that is cashed out.'In fiscal year 1994, food stamp benefits totaled $22.7 billion. The data thus suggest that ifthese benefits had been issued in cash instead of food stamps, food purchases would havebeen reduced between $4.5 billion and $5.7 billion last year.

Thomas F. Fraker (Mathematics Policy Research), Alberto P. Martini (Urban Institute), and JamesC. Ohls (Mathematics Policy Research), 'The Effects of Food Stamp Cashout on Food Expenditures: AnAssessment of the Findings From Four Demonstrations," December 1994.

14

115

112

The result would be a weakening of nutritional support for children. At present,child nutrition programs provide support to needy children on a consistent basisnationwide; children with incomes below 130 percent of the poverty line, for example,qualify for free school meals wherever they live. Under a block grant, this would nolonger be true. States in which a worsening economy or rising school enrollmentsresulted in increased need would have to reduce per-meal funding levels, lower theeligibility limits for free school meals, reduce support for some other kinds of meals(such as school breakfasts, meals served to poor children during summers, or mealsserved to pre-schoolers in child care), provide additional state funds to cover the in-creased need, or take some combination of these actions.

This would be unfortunate. Research has found that schoolchildren who havenot eaten breakfast are less likely to learn; the school breakfast program increases thenumber of poor children obtaining breakfast. In addition, school lunches andbreakfasts improve children's nutritional status and help them pay attention in class.The summer food program helps fills the nutritional gap that low-income childrenexperience in the summer when school meal programs shut down.

A related problem is that use of a formula to allocate block grant funds amongstates would lead to inequities. For example, if each state's funding level were basedon the federal funding it received for nutrition programs in fiscal year 1994, as theRepublican governors' plan proposes, states whose economies weaken in coming years

as well as states with rising school enrollments will receive no additional federalaid to serve the increasing numbers of low-income children. At the same time, stateswith robust economies and/or declining school enrollment might get more funds thanthey needed to maintain current levels of food assistance.s

Including the child and adult care food program in a block grant also wouldpose problems. It would come at a time that many states are intensifying their welfarereform efforts. A state that is particularly successful in putting welfare recipients towork and has a rising number of low-income children in child care as a resultwould receive no additional federal funds to provide meals to the additional childrenin care.

Some have suggested that eliminating all child nutrition support for meals served to middle-incomechildren would be a simple way for states to reduce the costs of child nutrition programs without affectinglow-income children. Under current law, federal funding support is provided for meals served to childrenfrom families with incomes above 185 percent of the federal poverty line, although these subsidies aresubstantially lower than those provided for meals served to lower-income children.

Past experience in reducing federal school lunch support for middle-income students, however, as wellas various studies on this issue, suggests a substantial number of schools would drop out of the schoollunch program if federal support for meals to non-low-income children is ended. In the early 1980s,moderate cuts in support for school meals served to middle-income children resulted in more than LOCOschools leaving the school lunch program. When schools drop out of the programs, low-income children inthese schools often lose access to free meals.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

116

113

Block-Granting WIC

Converting WIC to a block grant also raises serious issues. WIC is widelyregarded as one of the most successful of all federal programs. A 1992 GAO review ofthe cost-effectiveness of an array of children's programs found the data on WIC'seffectiveness to be stronger than the data for any other such program.

Evaluations have found that WIC improves the health of participating women,infants, and children to a striking degree. A multi-year, national evaluation conductedby the U.S. Department of Agriculture during the Reagan Administration found thatWIC reduces the late fetal death rate by 20 to 33 percent. The study found that WICmarkedly reduces infant deaths, low birthweight, premature births, and othermaladies. WIC also is associated with higher immunization rates and increased use ofprenatal and pediatric care.

After reviewing the research in the field, the U.S. General Accounting Officeestimated that WIC reduces low birthweight by a quarter and very low birthweight byalmost half (44 percent). Low birthweight is a leading cause of infant mortality andchildhood disability. Medical evidence also suggests that WIC reduces child anemia,and there are indications it improves cognitive functioning among children.

The GAO also estimated that the $296 million the federal government spent onWIC benefits for pregnant women in 1990 saved $853 million in the first year of life.Some $472 million of these savings represented reduced federal and state Medicaidcosts, while the remaining $381 million in savings accrued to hospitals and privatesector payers. Moreover, the GAO estimated that over the first 18 years of the lives ofthese children, the $296 million in federal expenditures in 1990 will save $1.036 billionin reduced federal, state, local and private sector costs for health care, disabilitypayments, and special education.

In short, WIC works. A panel of Fortune 100 CEOs noted when testifying beforethe House Budget Committee in 1991 that WIC is "the health-care equivalent of a triple-A rated investment." The CEOs called for the program to be fully funded in five years.

Block-granting WIC would jeopardize the important progress that has beenmade. Most important, it would be likely to lessen the effectiveness of the program.Some states might choose not to continue their WIC programs. Faced with tight budgetconstraints, they could elect to reduce or terminate WIC-type assistance and substituteincreases in food stamp allotments or cash benefits for pregnant women, infants, andyoung children. Such a step would eliminate costs for printing WIC vouchers andoperating WIC programs at health clinics. But the savings would come at a high price;the research strongly suggests a great deal of WIC's effectiveness would be foregoneunder such an approach. WIC links food assistance, nutrition education, and other

16

117

114

THE RESEARCH FINDINGS ON WIC

A series of medical evaluations have found that WIC improves the health of participating women.infants, and children. Most significant is an extensive. multi-year medical evaluation supported by theU.S. Department of Agriculture and issued in 1986. Directed by one of the leading researchers in thefield, it found:

WIC contributed to a reduction of one-fifth to one-third in the late fetal death rate.

Women who participated in WIC had longer pregnancies leading to fewer premature births, aleading cause of infant mortality. There was a 23 percent decrease in prematurity amongwhite women with less than a high school education and a IS percent decrease among blackwomen with less than a high school education.

WIC participation resulted in a significant increase in the number of women seeking prenatalcare early in pregnancy and a significant drop in the proportion of women with toofewprenatal visits to a health facility. Early and adequate prenatal care is one of the major factorsaffecting the health of newborn infants. Children participating in W1C also were betterimmunized and more likely to have a regular source of medical care.

WIC participation also appears to lead to better cognitive performance. Four and five year oldchildren whose mothers participated in W1C during pregnancy had better vocabulary testscores. Children who participated in WIC after their first birthdays had better digit memory

test scores.

Women enrolled in WIC consumed more iron, protein, calcium, and vitamin C. WIC alsoimproved the diets of infants by increasing the average intake of iron and vitamin C and thediets of older preschool children by increasing average consumption of iron, vitamin C,..thiamine, and niacin.

The greatest dietary benefits were among those people at highest risk: minority women withless education and children who are very poor, short, black, or in female-headed families.

Other studies have also demonstrated that WIC makes a significant contribution to the health ofpregnant women and young children and is cost effectiie.

Based on a review of numerous studies of WIC, the US. General Accounting Office (GAO)estimated that WIC reduces low birthweight by a quarter, and very low birthweight by almost

half.

The GAO estimated that the $296 million spent by the federal government in 1990 on WICbenefits for pregnant women saved $853 million in the first year of life in state and federalMedicaid expenditures and expenditures by hospitals and private sector payers. Over the first18 years of these children's lives, federal, state, and local governments and the private sectorwill save 81.036 billion, the GAO estimated.

Analyzing extensive WIC and Medicaid data from five states, Mathematica Policy Researchfound that WIC reduced infant mortality in four of the five states and that every dollar spenton WIC for pregnant women resulted in savings of $1.92 to 84.21 in Medicaid costs.

WIC has a major impact in reducing anemia. Data released in 1987 from the Center for DiseaseControl's Pediatric Nutrition Surveillance showed a two-thirds reduction in childhood anemiaover a 10-year period. The study indicated that WIC contributed markedly to the decline. Thestudy also found that low-income children not enrolled in WIC have a significantly higherprevalence of anemia than those who are enrolled.

17

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

118

115

maternal and child health services. It functions as a magnet, drawing low-incomewomen and children to health clinics for prenatal and pediatric care andimmunizations. The research has documented a strong association between WIC andmore timely and adequate use of prenatal and pediatric care, as well as between WICand higher rates of child immunization.

In addition, unlike food stamp benefits, WIC benefits may not be used for anyfood item. WIC provides a prescription food package designed to deliver the specificnutrients most needed to enable loy,v-income pregnant women, infants, and children toobtain adequate diets. It also provides nutrition education classes and activities toencourage and assist new mothers to breastfeed.

These special characteristics have been crucial to achieving the resultsdocumented in the research on WIC. It is unlikely a program lacking thesecharacteristics could match WIC's effectiveness.

Second, even if many states retained WIC-type programs, a block grant wouldlikely change WIC's character in ways that tended to lessen its effectiveness. WICfeatures what may be the most effective set of cost-containment measures of anyfederally supported health program. Federal law requires every state to usecompetitive bidding to purchase infant formula for WIC. These competitive biddingprocedures typically result in price reductions of 60 percent to 80 percent and savedapproximately $1.1 billion in FY 1994, according to U.S. Department of Agriculturedata. The savings were used to provide WIC foods to more than 1.5 million pregnantwomen, infants, and children each month. Today, nearly one of every four WIC parti-cipants is served with savings from WIC infant formula cost containment systems.

In a number of states, these systems probably would be weakened if WIC wereblock-granted. In many states, the two largest infant formula manufacturers whichcontrol nearly 90 percent of the domestic infant formula market between them haveconsiderable clout with state health departments and medical associations. Prior topassage of the 1989 federal law requiring use of competitive bidding to purchase infantformula for the WIC program, fewer than half of the states had instituted this practice.

In addition, more than half of the states have now joined in multi-state contractsfor the purchase of infant formula for WIC. This increases savings; the infant formulacompanies offer larger price reductions when a greater volume of sales is at stakeunder a WIC contract. If WIC is block-granted and the programs that replace it varysignificantly from state to state, the extent of multi-state contracting is likely to decrease

and savings are like to fall as a consequence.

A related problem is that if WIC is converted to a block grant, agriculturalcommodity interests that are potent in particular states are likely to push hard to have

18

119

116

their commodities added to the WIC food package in these states. There is a stronglikelihood such efforts would succeed in a number of places. By contrast, at the federallevel. Republican and Democratic administrations alike have stood firm against suchencroachments and succeeded in making decisions on the food package entirely onscientific merit. If items are added to the food package largely due to political muscle,either more nutritionally valuable foods will have to be dropped or the benefit packagewill grow more costly, with the result that fewer women and children can be served.

Still another problem is that funding for WIC would probably decline over time.Since the program's inception, federal WIC funding has never been reduced. PresidentReagan proposed to cut WIC in 1981 and 1982, but these proposals were rejected by theRepublican Senate in those years at a time when most other reductions in low-incomeprograms proposed by the Reagan Administration were being approved. Steadyincreases in federal funding over the years have allowed WIC to increase theproportion of eligible mothers and children it serves. In the late 1980s and early 1990s,President Bush sought and secured major increases in WIC funding, as PresidentClinton has done in the past two years.

But the story is different at the state level. Even though state appropriations forWIC generally qualify a state for a larger federal WIC allocation, a number of thosestates that provide funds for WIC have reduced them in recent years. In the past twoyears, overall state funding for WIC has fallen 33 percent, after adjusting for inflation.

The conversion of WIC to a block grant would also pose one other problem.Some states currently reach larger proportions of their WIC-eligible populations thanother states do. Recently, the federal formula for allocating WIC funds among stateswas carefully redesigned to address this issue and bring states serving below-averagepercentages of their WIC-eligible populations up toward the average. If WIC is mergedinto a block grant, this formula will be lost. Some states that have smaller-than-averageWIC programs could be among the states that lose most heavily under the overall blockgrant distribution formula.

In short, merging WIC into a block grant would weaken one of the mostsuccessful and effective of all federal poverty programs.

Block Granting Food Assistance Programs for Special Populations

The federal government also funds several smaller food assistance programstailored to the needs of specific groups. The Nutrition Program for the Elderlyprovides home-delivered meals to elderly persons who have difficulty leaving theirhomes to obtain food. It also provides meals at senior centers, which can attract seniors,to come to these centers and receive other needed social services. Other, smallprograms have been designed to provide USDA commodities to soup kitchens serving

19

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

12

117

destitute people and to families living in remote areas of Indian reservations far fromfood stores.

If these programs were consolidated into a single food assistance block grantwith reduced funding, it is unclear whether states would maintain these specializedservices. These smaller programs were designed to meet the needs of particularlyvulnerable populations who could not adequately be served by the programs servingthe general population.

For example, only 18 percent of homeless people receive food stamps, accordingto an Urban Institute study. They rely more on soup kitchens. In addition, families inremote areas of Indian reservations often cannot get to grocery stores or have access

only to stores charging extremely high prices; the food stamp program is not veryuseful to such families, and as a result, they receive USDA commodity foods in lieu offood stamps.

It is unclear how states would be able to maintain the sour kitchen and NativeAmerican programs under a block grant. The U.S. Department of Agriculture nowpurchases food in bulk for such programs and distributes it, a function that would bedifficult for each state to match. Homeless individuals, and residents of remotereservations, could face reduced access to food assistance.

This raises a related issue. Under the proposed block grants, the U.S.Department of Agriculture would cease purchasing and distributing commodity fooditems, except for a small amount of "bonus" commodities such as butter. Currently,USDA distributes more than $1 billion a year in commodity foods. Some of these fundsare used to purchase food items that are both nutritious and in oversupply. Byremoving substantial quantities of a food item from the market when the item is inoversupply, USDA helps prevent the market price for the item from falling so low thatsome agricultural producers may be driven out of business. Thus, USDA's commoditypurchases can simultaneously help stabilize the agricultural economy and further thegoals of the food assistance programs. If the USDA commodity purchase role ended orwas sharply scaled back as a result of the switch to a block grant, this could have

detrimental effects on producers as well as on the vulnerable low-income populationsthat rely on these commodities.

Conclusion: Increasing State Flexibility and Reducing Costs Without InstitutingBlock Grants

In the coming year, Congress faces several key questions regarding the foodassistance programs: 1) should the programs be merged into a block grant?; 2) shouldstates be given more flexibility in operating these programs and freed from somecurrent federal requirements?; and 3) should the cost of these programs be reduced?

20

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

121

118

These are three separate questions. While block grants often are touted as ways toincrease state flexibility, that can be done without merging the programs into a blockgrant. In the food stamp program, for example, states could be given more flexibility inusing their federal food stamp employment and training funds. This would enablestates to align their food stamp employment and training program more closely withtheir JOBS programs. Similarly, states could be given flexibility to modify the rules onwhat counts as income and resources in the food stamp program for food stamphouseholds that receive AFDC. This would enable one set of rules to cover familiesapplying for both AFDC and food stamps. States also could be given more flexibility ininstituting electronic benefit systems to issue food stamp benefits. In addition, thecurrent limitation on state food stamp cash-out pilot projects, scheduled to expireSeptember 30, 1995, could be ended earlier.

In a similar vein, savings can be secured without resorting to a block grant if thatis the course Congress wishes to follow. In 1980, 1981, and 1982, substantial reductionswere made in the food stamp and child nutrition programs. This was done bychanging the eligibility and benefit rules for the programs without eliminating theprograms' entitlement status. Cuts in these programs would not be withoutconsequences, and some reductions would likely reduce food assistance for low-incomehouseholds. But if Congress decided to cut costs in these programs, it could do sowithout block-granting them.

In addition, whatever funding level Congress finds appropriate for foodassistance programs, the available funds are likely to be distributed more efficientlywithout a block grant because a block grant would provide relatively generousamounts to some states while forcing others, particularly those whose economies aredeclining, to cut much more deeply. Whether one believes that current levels ofassistance are appropriate or should be reduced, it is hard to justify imposing moresevere cuts on states with weak economies than on states where the economy is robust.

21

122

119

Mr. ROEMER. Does anybody else have specific answers to increas-ing flexibility and reducing paperwork?

Mr. LUKEFAHR. Mr. Roemer, I would like to address the WIC pro-gram in particular. One thing that I know we are working on inTexas as an example is to try to allow groups of physicians, grouppractices and HMOs, to actually sponsor their own WIC programs.This would allow a lot of accessibility, once again, ease of acces-sibility for a lot of families, plus would probably introduce a lot ofefficiencies, like for instance the blood tests that the WIC offices doto monitor anemia and so forth. The physician could use the bloodtest that they were doing for other purposes, for instance, and usesome of their own staff members to fulfill some of the functions.And that is something that we in Texas would like to see more of.

Chairman GOODLING. Do you have a quick response?Mr. TEMPLE-WEST. An example of the paperwork, if you want an

after-school program in the school, you have to license the schoolas a childcare center and bring it in under the childcare program.Then you can only serve children through 12. That seems a littleround about, but we have done it. We serve them that way.

Chairman GOODLING. Dr. Weldon. I introduced you that waysince there is another Doctor on the panel.

Mr. WELDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.I want to thank all the panelists for their very enlightening testi-

mony. Indeed I have too many questions to confine to five minutes.It is really hard to pick from which one to start, but I do want tomake a couple of comments for the record.

I was hired by the voters of my district to come here and rep-resent them because of a deep concern, on the part of a lot of tax-payers, regarding the proper use of our tax dollars.

In particular there is a tremendous amount of concern regardingthe issue of the deficit and the impact that will have on our chil-dren. One of the interesting phenomena that has been described bya lot of conservative thinkers is that once you create these pro-grams, the clientele mushrooms, and it indeed contributes to theissue of eroding responsibility in our culture.

There has been a lot of dialogue regarding coming from the leftas well as the right, that there has been a tremendous erosion ofpersonal responsibility and family integrity. Granted, there is a tre-mendous amount of need out there. I have seen it as a physician,particularly working with the elderly and the Meals on Wheels pro-gram, which is a great program. I would like to say, when you stepin and you see this need and you say we have to create a programto address that need, then suddenly the need begins to grow.

And how do we put a limit on this so that we are not erodingthe integrity of families? Indeed, can you get at the whole issue,isn't it an appropriate function for government to be in the busi-ness of feeding people. And I am sure, Mr. Fersh, you're aware ofthis, there is no constitutional provision in our Constitution to givethe government the authority to be involved in the business offeeding our citizens.

I am not by any means saying that we should completely aban-don this type_ of enterprise. Also, Ms. Hurt, I would like you to com-ment on this issue. You made comments I think twice about yourtremendous concern about there being stigma.

123

120

I was raised by my father, who grew up in the Depression andwent hungry as a child growing up, that it was a terrible thing totake a handout from anybody. He instilled in me one of the thingsthat motivated me to start working while I was still in school. Asa young boy growing up, I started working and buying my ownclothes and doing things like that.

It would seem we would want some stigma associated with tak-ing handouts or the taxpayers' money for food. Maybe you couldstart commenting.

Ms. HURT. We want to feed all children. All children need goodnutrition regardless of their income. But the way the program iscurrently set up, we sort them out by income. And knowing whatit is to be poor, and frequently there is this image of the programthat it is a program for the poor, so that then those who pay thefull price don't want to be in it, and then the poor are ending upin the line by themselves.

And that is the thing that we want to get away from. All childrenneed good nutrition.

Mr. WELDON. How do we get away from that, though?Ms. HURT. We have suggested that we do feed all children, be-

cause all children need good nutrition and that we don't collect in-come data from families, but that having lunch at school becomesa part of their education. And then they learn how to eat for therest of their lives.

The Gunderson Clinic in LaCrosse tells me that if we begin nowand provide our children with good nutrition, that it will have animpact on our health care costs. But it will be 40 years. So we needto start now.

Mr. WELDON. We are running out of time. Could you just com-ment on the issue I just talked about, eroding responsibility, andhow you balance that with this ever-growing desire to have moreprograms?

Mr. FERSH. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this issue.I think it is a fundamental issue and a very important one for allof us to examine. I will simply say to you that it is not my viewthat these programs create or build dependency.

I do believe we need to maximize the role of parents and commu-nities to deal with kids' problems. But fundamentally what wehave discovered in this country is we had recruits for World WarII who could not pass physicals. We had widespread anemia andgrowth stunting in this country. All of this has been amelioratedby these programs.

These programs are working. And I think the most importantthing I would say to you is, whatever the underlying reason, thisgoes back to the dialogue with Mr. Greenwood, what we are talkingabout are children. All these programs, child nutrition programsare all children. WIC, 5 million of the 7 million are children. Theother 2 million are pregnant or postpartum women.

Food stamp program, 52 percent are children. Children and theirfamilies get 82 percent of all the benefits.

What we are saying to you is that while we want to work withyou on the underlying causes, I don't believethis is a personal be-lief, nowthat these programs are what create the dependency. Ithink there are other, more serious underlying problems people

124

121

face. But if people begin to spend all their time and energyandI appreciate your own personal storyif people spend all their timeand energy trying to keep food in their mouths and shelter overtheir head and clothing on their backs, they will not be able to puttheir time and attention into the longer-range strategies and train-ing and education they need to be self-sufficient down the road.

Chairman GOODLING. Mr. Reed.Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Just two general areas of questioning. As I understand one of the

consequences of this proposal, the 50 States could have 50 differentnutritional regimes. They could decide in Georgia that peanuts areprobably the best thing that a kid could eat. They could decide inRhode Island that quahogs are the best thing to eat. It just seemsto me whatever we do we should maintain the Federal standardsof nutrition, consistent standards throughout every State program.

I wonder if there would be any thoughts from the panel on deal-ing with this issue on a direct way on that issue. Doctor?

Dr. LUKEFAHR. Thank you, Mr. Reed.I think that is a very big concern. What I like about WIC and

the school lunches in particular is that you can't get potato chipswith your WIC vouchers or with your school lunch. These are spe-cifically designed packages of food to address nutritional needs.And I think there would be pressure at the local level to incor-porate whatever is the local cash crop into the scheme, whether ornot it really works for the kids.

Ms. HURT. Yes, I would also like to address that. We do supportnutrition standards in the Nation. We have spent quite a bit ofmoney developing the Food Guide and Pyramid we we use in nutri-tion education materials and the dietary guidelines for Americans.Last fall, we passed legislation that would require schools to meetthe dietary guidelines by July of 1996.

And so we are gearing up for that. And we don't want to losethat. So we do need nutrition standards set at the national levelthat would be applied to all programs.

Mr. REED. Thank you.Let me take another tack. And that is, just questioning seriously

the logic of putting these programs together, because they are dis-parate programs that deal with very different populations. Youhave women and children, and I think one of the overriding issuesis not just nutrition but also health care, as you pointed out so elo-quently, the savings realized in terms of Medicaid dollars, etcetera, and then you have seen your programs which I think alsois a significant health component, as Meals on Wheels, et cetera,maintain health.

Then you have the food stamp program which is basically an in-come program. We could just as easily increase the AFDC pay-ments and take away food stamps if you wanted to maintain theprogram. It is really a different program.

And so I have got a deep problem with lumping these all to-gether as if they are all apples when in fact they are apples andoranges. I wonder if you could comment on the panel just on thelogic of doing this.

Mr. FERSH. I think I am elected.

125

122

Mr. Reed, I agree with those general sentiments. There is a ge-nius to the current system, intended or unintendedforyour bene-fit I will say intendedthat says, "Okay, we are going to feed kidsin certain settings that really makes sense." In schools this linkagemakes sense. In many places after-school care makes sense to takecare of latchkey children. You want to feed children and give themproper nutrition in childcare centers.

The success of WIC is in large part because it is linked with thehealth system. If we cashed out WIC or added food stamp benefitsfor pregnant women, you would lose all the benefits of bringingwomen in for prenatal care and coordinating with the entire healthprogram. And neither the schools nor the health system can dealwith the underlying problems of programs like food stamps whichtries to deal generally with the population and establish at leasta nutritional baseline for people.

Here I would say, although it is not in your committee's jurisdic-tion, that the food stamp program is an incredibly important equal-izer among various States. The levels of assistance across the coun-try have been very uneven, and the food stamp program does makesure that at least nationwide some nutritional levels are being met.

Mr. REED. Just a final pointand this is looking ahead, I knowthe time is running outbut you are at the local level, and we al-ways get slammed here for thinking too hard here in Washingtonabout what America should do. If this program goes through, mysense is that you are going to have the old competing against theyoung competing against the poor. There is not going to be enoughmoney and people are going to lose out.

I wonder from your perspective, as local officials, is that yourtake on it and what do you think is going to happen?

Ms. TAYLOR. We are very concerned about that in the aging field.The whole tenor of the aging field, and the White House conferenceis coming up in May, is more emphasis on intergenerational. Myboard of directors recently passed a resolution related to someFEMA funds, because they were very concerned in an area likeours, where the numbers of poverty people are smaller percentage,they often have difficulty getting service.

So we are concerned about all ages and very frightened at theprospect that these programs would be pitted against each other.It doesn't make any sense, because we have demonstrated over andover that it is less expensive to do community-based service thanit is to run into health care.

And these kids that these folks are talking about, when they getto be senior citizens, then they have all the health care problems,and that is a nightmare.

Mr. REED. Thank you.Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Chairman GOODLING. Mr. Cunningham.Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.I would say to the panel, stand by. Joe Kennedy on the House

floor, along with Ross Perot, said our number-one enemy in thiscountry is not law enforcement, not children's nutrition, not any-thing; it is the national debt, because it prevents us from doing thethings that we want to do. I look at the same liberals who will in-

128

123

hibit reform systems. They are going to hurt usand I include youamong themand I will be specific.

First of all, we have got 168 unfunded mandate amendments onthe floor that would stop unfunded mandates that want toprioritize things. But yet that stops you from the very thing youare fighting for. And I ask you to support those kinds of amend-ments and get behind them if you really want to help us.

I look at illegal immigration in California. I just spent with Gov-ernor Wilsontake a look at this, if I have got if here. Take a lookat the costs in the State of California of illegal immigration. Fivehundred thousand illegal immigrants K through 12 at $5,000 each.

You don't think that doesn't impact children's nutrition? I wantthem out of there and I need your help and support for it.

I look at food stamps. You talk about how great the food stampprogram is, Doc. Did you ever watch "20/20" and the fraud, wasteand abuse that is in that? I need you to fight to clean it up to beable to help you. But yet I don't see that with the liberals. Theywant to fund illegals. They want the food stamps. They want moremoney. And we need some help in it.

I met with the governors, and they are asking for block grants.They want the flexibility, they want to do away with the bureauc-racy, they want to do away with the Federal reporting, and theywanted to have the flexibility to run their programs in the locallevels. And they will cut 15 percent and make it work better. Andthe governors who run the State programs are telling us this, andthat is what they want.

Now, on the other hand, let me be a little gentler. WIC worksin our State. It is a good program. I support keeping the food nutri-tion programs out of the welfare block grantsthe school lunch,the school breakfast.

And I would say to Ms. Taylor, they are not senior citizens. Theyare chronologically gifted folks. But we need help like the earningstest. Let's set up childcare centers. I have got senior citizens thatwant to set up childcare but they can't earn more than $11,200 orwe tax them. Fight for those kinds of things, and it will help youand it will help us. But the liberals say, Give me more, give memore, don't cut me.

If you don't get along with your governor, you better build abridge quick.

Secondly, Karl Marx is not in charge in River City anymore. Sec-ondly, you need to run your program like a business. And I wouldask you to come to this committee with areas in which you canhelp us fix the system. The food stamp program, the illegal immi-gration problem, all of those are coming from the things we wantto do and increasing the debt.

The unfunded mandate thing, I sat there and watched 168amendments proposed, and that is part of our problem. If it is im-portant, let's fund it.

And I would ask the gentleman, how are youI heard Ms. Hurtand Mr. West talk about how they are going to help it. The otherpanelist, they are going to say, Give me more, give me more, don'tcut me. How about some reforms? Have you got any ideas?

Mr. FERSH. Mr. Cunningham, a couple of points I would like tomake. First of all, I want to tell you that I had the honor of work-

127

124

ing for three congressional committees before I came to FRAC. Thefirst job I had on Capitol Hill was to work for the Senate BudgetCommittee. And I too share the concern about deficit. We might de-bate how to get the deficit down. But there is no statement herethat doesn't say we shouldn't cut.

The other point I will make is when I worked on the Senate Agri-culture Committee, at that point in the Minority, the committeechaired by Senator Helms, I helped design billions of dollars in nu-trition cutbacks, cutbacks I felt were ill-advised.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Just tell us how to do it.Mr. FERSH. The point I want to make to you is if Congress de-

cides as a matter of economic health for the country thatall of uswant to be at the table to help you design that, if it needs to bedone, we argue it should not be taken out of the mouths of childrenand elderly people, not at first, certainly. But if that job needs tobe done, we will work with you. But don't undermine the structurethat means these programs may not exist over time. That is thefirst point, and we will work with you on that.

On the issue of food stamp fraud, I agree with you that some-thing needs to be done. But I would suggest you can't get rid offood stamp fraud by passing it on to the States. Unless you passa program that defines fraud by its very nature, you still have toinvent the better mousetrap.

I would suggest that keeping some Federal controls, the abilitiesto invent a system at the Federal level, coordinate among Statesso people don't run agross States, is a better way to control it.

We have called for enhanced implementation of expanded elec-tronic benefits transfer which we understand will eliminate largeparts of the problem, not all the problem. We believe that shouldmove forward.

Thirdly, you probably have more dialogue with governors than Ihave. I have had the honor of meeting two weeks ago with the newRepublican Governor of Kansas.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Tommy Thompson is one of the leaders ofthat.

Mr. FERSH. All I am saying is I don't hear unanimous voicesthere. Last week I was at the U.S. Conference of Mayors meetingand I met with the mayor of Detroit, Mr. Archer, and he said hedoesn't agree with Governor Engler. He is closer to the problems,he doesn't believe these programs ought to be block granted. He re-spects his views, but on nutrition he thinks it should go the wayyou said, it ought to be separated out from welfare reform.

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, point of personal privilege. Can a lib-eral answer the previous question?

Chairman GOODLING. Your time will come.I am reminded when I hear this discussion, we have a talk show

host and one of the local stations back home, and of course ninetimes out of 10 I can't wait to get off' the road and call in so thatI can get on his back. But he started out the other morning by say-ing, "Why in the world would they ever start their cutting with thearts and the humanities?"

So I quickly got off the road and I called in and I said, "Theyare all in my committee. Where would you like me to start, schoollunch and child nutrition?" He said, "No, no."

128

125

Ms. Woolsey.Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.I am sitting here being very, very proud of being a Democrat and

being a liberal and knowing that, yes indeed, we do neglect ourchildren. We are neglecting them when we send them to schoolhungry. Maybe it is their parents that are neglecting them. But Ibelieve it is not only parents, it is the economy in general.

We have an economy where if a youngster is lucky enough tohave two parents, both of those parents probably go to work. Hope-fully they do. If they are a responsible, work-oriented family, defi-nitely both parents work, oftentimes leaving that child home, be-cause we don't have a childcare system that will take care of them.

So a very young child leaves for school after their parents haveleft for work, arrives at school having probably taken on more re-sponsibility just getting to school than that child should have totake on for an entire day.

So that child is not only possibly hungry; that child is possiblyfrightened and scared. That little kid is the one that turns out injunior high school to be damn angry, because that child has beenneglected, and they know it, and they resent it. And I am tellingyou, we start investing in children now, at the front-end, so wedon't have to invest in them late whether they are angry and onthe streets and causing problems.

Children can't learn when they are hungry. And we have to faceup to that. It is our responsibility. And if we don't face up to it,we are neglecting our children, all of them. We are also neglectingseniors who want to live at home, can't if they don't have a bal-anced diet, and we need to look at that also.

Food is very important to the people in this country. And we arethe richest nation on earth. Why would we be withholding foodfrom anyone?

One of the questions I want to ask, and any of you that feel likeanswering it, with the Personal Responsibility Act, to combine allthe Federal nutrition programs into one block grant, they also aresuggesting a cap on annual appropriations.

Would your States be able in times of recession to provide theextra food that would be necessary in these programs because intimes of recession, of course, there would be an even greater de-mand? Could you see your States filling that gap, making up thatdifference?

Ms. Hurt?Ms. HURT. I can address it from the point of view that we did

ask our State for three cents more for breakfast and we were un-able to get that in the State of Wisconsin. And I can also tell youthat we do have cost controls on our school budgets. And so it isunlikely, I think, that we would receive additional funds from theState or from the local school district to deal with those times.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Would anybody else like to respond?Mr. TEMPLE-WEST. Yes, I would. And indirectly to some of the

other questions.The States are going to have to establish some sort of bureauc-

racy to manage H.R. 4. They are going to actually have to set upthey are going to have to hire somebody to write policy and regula-tions and reimbursement forms. They are actually going to have to

92-373 95 - 5129

126

establish what now exists in the Department of Agriculture in 50States.

Now, obviously then the State will decide whether or notoncethey have got their bureaucracy in place and that bureaucracy maybe self-perpetuating at the State level and be able to find its ownmoney to continue these programs at the State level.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Do you think they would find the money?Mr. TEMPLE-WEST. Well, bureaucracies tend to perpetrate them-

selves and I suspect some of them may and some of them wouldn't.I suspect what we are doing is changing one bureaucracy for an-other, and for 52soI mean, talk aboutwhat I don't see is itgetting down to our level.

The States think they may be saving money with this. But Idon't think they are going to make our job any easier. In fact ourjob will probably get harder because we are going to have to proveneed at the level. Each little childcare center now is going to be incompetition with everybody else. And it is going to have to saynow you are going to have to come up with needs assessments.

It is going to be an enormous amount of work.Ms. WOOLSEY. Anybody else? They haven't cut us off yet. I am

your friend, Mr. Chairman.Chairman GOODLING. Is there someone who was real anxious to

respond to the gentlelady's statement or question?Mr. LUKEFAHR. Very briefly, I also am extremely concerned

about this competition issue, especially with no qualifiers as to howthe money is to be spent. I think smaller programs like WIC willbe absorbed in the bigger picture. I think competition is a seriousissue.

Chairman GOODLING. Of course WIC probably would do well ifwe wouldn't change things because they have a 12 percent set-aside.

Mr. LUKEFAHR. Mr. Chairman, could I address that? I am sorry,Mr. Chairman, could I address that?

Chairman GOODLING. When it is my turn to question.Mr. Riggs.Mr. RIGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.The last few minutes, anyway, has been particularly stimulating.

As a fellow Californian, I want to follow up on Mr. Cunningham'sremarks because we did meet earlier today with Governor PeteWilson of California, and he stressed to the Members of the Califor-nia Republican congressional delegation that he and his fellow gov-ernors, the majority of whom are now of course Republicans, meet-ing over the last few days here in Washington, DC, were inconsist-ent that we here on Capitol Hill in the Congress hear their con-cerns.

And their concerns really boil down to asking the Congress, andI think this is reflected through the contract, but also in the PRA,for more autonomy and more flexibility. They want us to end indi-vidual entitlements wherever possible, and shift the thinking inthis country from an entitlement mentality to more emphasis onpersonal or individual responsibility, as Dr. Weldon was alludingto.

They want us to eliminate maintenance of efforts requirementson block grants. They want to us block grant welfare programs.

130

127

Governor Wilson stressed that he believes we should allow Statesmaximum statutory flexibility to determine eligibility and benefitlevels.

So with that as a backdrop, let me ask you a couple of very spe-cific questions.

One is, and I guess I will start off by asking as a former schoolboard member, school board president myself, a member of CSBAand NSBA, I will ask Mr. Boehlje to respond to this question. Isit not possible that eliminating much of the burdensome paperworkin the school lunch and breakfast programs could actually reducecost and allow schools greater flexibility in providing nutritiousmeals to low-income children?

Mr. BOEHLJE. Certainly I think that is possible. But not veryprobable. I just don't think that is going to happen.

I think when you shift it to the next level in the process, particu-larly, to use the example in your situation, in your particular State,of the whole issue of immigration and a philosophy expressed bya number of your people that we should be providing absolutely nobenefits to those people who are not legal immigrants in the schoolsystem.

The next step you are asking or a number of people are askingis for the school districts to be the policemen in that situation andto provide the information and to then make a determination onwhether these people ought to qualify for free or reduced lunches,this type of thing.

When you get into that type of philosophy, if you can make thedecision at the local level, that is one thing. But what we are talk-ing about here isn't going to be that decision-making power at thelocal level and there is no guarantee of any particular funding togo at the level. So local districts are going to be prohibited frommaking those decisions.

And certainly the amount of paperwork and administrative costs,there is just no guarantee at all that that is going to be lessened.

Mr. RIGGS. Let me just respectfully disagree to the extent thatwe canwhat is the term that is floating around Washington thesedays, devolve or have a devolution here in Washington, but to theextent that we can return responsibility to State and local edu-cation agencies, I think that is very much in keeping with the long-standing American tradition of decentralized decision making inpublic education.

But let me segue to Dr. Lukefahr because I know he wanted tomake a comment about how PRA would continue to treat the WIC.Let me pose it in the form of a question. The PRA reserves 12 per-cent of each State's block grants, a program similar to WIC. Thisamount is expected to fully fund WIC in each State.

If this is accurate, how can you assume that an appropriate foodpackage would not be provided to individuals participating in theprogram, and for any of the other folks here on the panel, why doyou believe that States would not develop and include their ownguidelines which would ensure nutrition and well-balanced meals?

Dr. LUICEFAHR. Mr. Riggs, actually the bill does not set aside 12percent for WIC. As you mentioned, it sets aside 12 percent basi-cally for women and children. And my reading of the bill is thatthere is nothing to keep a State from saying, "Well, 25 or 30 per-

1 3 1

128

cent of our food stamps go to women and children, ipso facto ourjob is done."

And I think that under the pressure of the constraints of Statebudgets, that there would be a lot of pressure to not specify pro-grams in greater detail than that.

Mr. TEMPLE-WEST. I would assume thatand as I said in mytestimony, the States will probably have to continue with existingFederal regulations until they can get their arms around this. Idon't see any other way. If this thing goes into effect October 1, Idon't see any other way for the States to work it.

Chairman GOODLING. Mr. Martinez.Ms. HURT. You asked if we could save money by reducing that

paperwork. But we couldn't save 17 percent. That is the cut wewould receive nationwide with the PRA. We could save, you know,maybe 2 or 3 cents a meal. When I looked at that one position inmy office it said, Well, this one would no longer be needed, that isabout what we would be saving.

Chairman GOODLING. Mr. Martinez.Mr. MARTINEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Mr. Chairman, I understand that you will allow the Members to

enter their statements in the record.Chairman GOODLING. Without objection.Mr. MARTINEZ. I would like to also add the extraneous material.

Fernando Torres, the Under Secretary, was going to testify lastweek. I would like to submit that for the record.

Chairman GOODLING. Is there objection? Without objection.[The information follows:]

3 2

129

STATEMENT OF

FERNANDO M. TORRES-GIL

Good morning Chairman Goodling, and Members of the Committee. I

appreciate the opportunity to come before you to discuss the

Elderly Nutrition Program of the Older Americans Act, which

serves all those 60 years of age or older regardless of income.

In addition, I will discuss Title V of the Personal

Responsibility Act which includes a provision to consolidate a

number of nutrition programs into a block grant called the Food

Assistance Program. One of the programs being considered is the

nutrition services of the Older Americans Act.

As you know, the largest provider of community nutrition services

for the elderly is the Elderly Nutrition Program, funded through

the Older Americans Act and administered by the Administration on

Aging (AoA).

As the Assistant Secretary for Aging, I oversee the

administration of the Older Americans Act and the programs funded

by it, including the Elderly Nutrition Program (Title III-C). My

own involvement with this program dates back to 1973 when I was

one of the original trainers who worked with project directors

hired to set up the original "Title VII" Elderly Nutrition

Program. The current Title III-C contains two federally-funded

parts, Congregate Nutrition Services (C-1) and Home-Delivered

Nutrition Services (C-2). The services provided under the two

parts are similar, but they are targeted to different populations

of older people. In addition to Title III-C, similar nutrition

133

130

services are provided to American Indians, Alaskan Natives, and

Native Hawaiians under Title VI of the Older Americans Act.

Overview of Nutrition Services within the Older Americans Act

Network

Let me briefly describe just how large this network of nutrition

programs has grown. This fiscal year AoA will distribute almost

$500 million to 57 States and territories and an additional $16

million to Indian Tribes earmarked for both congregate and home-

delivered nutrition services. AoA funding for these services are

supplemented by the USDA Cash and Commodity Program, participant

donations, and State and other funds.

According to the most recent 1993 figures, about 225 million

meals were served through the network of over 2,200 Title III(C)

Elderly Nutrition Projects at over 15,000 community nutrition

sites. Forty-five percent of those meals were provided to the

elderly in their own homes. For example, there are approximately

two elderly meal sites in a community providing hot and

nutritious meals as well as other supportive services to the

elderly for every McDonald's restaurant in that same community.

It is important to note that nutrition services do not operate in

isolation but are a part of broader, balanced, integrated

approach to a comprehensive and coordinated system of services

that includes social and supportive services as well as health

2 -

134

131

and medical services. The problems of older people are both

medical and social, and there are indications that poverty and

social isolation go hand in hand. Lack of social support can

also play a role in the development of disease and disability,

and researchers have shown a relationship between lack of social

support and chronic illness.

Congregate and Home-delivered Nutrition Services address this

need as well as many others. The objectives of these programs

are to provide healthful meals and related-nutrition and

supportive services to nutritionally at-risk older people. Other

nutrition services such as nutrition screening, assessment,

education, counseling, outreach, meals for special diets, 1

shopping assistance and referrals to food assistance programs

also are included. These services are tailored to and supported

by local communities. These services are more than vouchers for

food.

The Congregate Nutrition Program provides intangibles such as

camaraderie and friendship as well as the opportunity to

participate in community volunteer activities, and get access to

other services. Social isolation, grief and depression effects

how individuals eat as well as function. The lack of social

support can play a role in the development of disease and

disability and researchers have shown a relationship between lack

of social support and unhealthy outcomes of illness.

- 3 -

1 3 5

132

The Congregate Nutrition Program addresses these needs and is an

integral component of a continuum of comprehensive and

coordinated community-based services to enable older Americans to

remain at home in their communities. In addition to the prepared

meals and other nutrition services, supportive services such as

transportation, health promotion and disease prevention

activities, health screening, benefits counseling, caregiver

support groups and social activities are also offered.

Many congregate sites are run by community volunteers, many of

them elders themselves. You may be interested to know that in a

disaster, such as the Los Angeles earthquake, floods in

California or the floods of the Midwest, congregate nutrition

sites also function as disaster assistance centers, often because

they might be one of the few community facilities with a

functioning kitchen. These congregate sites are not only

essential in times of extraordinary circumstances, however; as

noted above, there are a wealth of services provided, as well as

offering a daily center for fellowship, and a sense of belonging,

for elders throughout the year.

Congregate Nutrition Programs offer unique intergenerational

opportunities. In Seattle, Washington, the SPICE Program, a

congregate nutrition program offered in elementary and secondary

schools provides the opportunity for intergenerational activities

between elders, children and youth.

4 -

136

133

Since I was appointed Assistant Secretary for Aging in May of

1993, I have had an opportunity to travel extensively throughout

the Unites States spending time with our constituents, our

seniors. During my travels, I have heard many stories about the

importance of nutrition intervention and nutrition services which

are provided by the Older Americans Act nutrition program. Let

me share an example with you. During a visit last year in

Tennessee with Vice President Gore's mother, Pauline, I visited

with two older women, one in her mid-60s with severe arthritis

and her mother in her mid-80s, who had suffered a stroke. Both

women had sufficient impairments that nursing home placement was

possible. However, the provision of essential nutrition

intervention, a daily home-delivered meal, and the visits of a

senior companion provided just enough social and nutrition

support to enable both women to stay at home in the community

caring for each other rather than in a nursing home.

Twenty years ago, in 1974, the first full year of the Older

Americans Act funded home-delivered meal- program was in

operation. The Administration on Aging limited the number of

home delivered meals to 10 percent of all meals provided. Today,

home-delivered meals almost equal congregate meals, and if trends

continue, will soon exceed congregate meals. In a few years we

have gone from a period when home-delivered meals simply did not

exist to the present appreciation that meals delivered to the

homes of the elderly is a fundamental core service necessary for

- 5 -

137

134

keeping functionally disabled elderly people in their homes and

in the community.

Home-delivered Nutrition Services are targeted to the more frail,

vulnerable, and functionally-impaired elderly and again offer

more than a meal. The person delivering a meal may be a

homebound person's primary link to the outside world. Service

providers tell many stories of finding older individuals who have

fallen or need medical attention. Perhaps one of the most moving

statements regarding home-delivered nutrition services comes from

an older man in Ohio. He said, "I need my home-delivered meal

to keep me alive. And I need my meal delivery person to find me

when I die." This service is indeed integral to life and death.

Home-delivered nutrition services may be the one essential

service that keeps a person in their home and not in an

institution. Home-delivered nutrition services also offer vital

family support. At any one time, 95 percent of older people are

at home in their communities with families providing essential

care. Nutrition services, especially home - delivered meals, help

support the families and caregivers.

As recent media attention to the problem of hunger in America has

indicated, the need for community nutrition services through the

Elderly Nutrition Program is increasing. It has been reported

that waiting lines exist in various parts of the country.

6

138

185

Preliminary 1994 data from a New York state-wide telephone survey

of the need for home-delivered meals indicated that 6.6 percent

of the over-60 population or 193,000 individuals were in need of

home-delivered nutrition services and that 30 percent of these

individuals could be served with current funding.

These examples illustrate some of the different risk factors that

can lead to hunger and malnutrition. These risk factors include

diseases and conditions; specially prescribed diets; mouth and

tooth problems; unintentional weight loss; disability and

functional impairment; chronic use of multiple medications and

alcohol; poverty and social isolation. Although I could provide

examples or statistics for each factor, let me just address

poverty. In 1991, over six million persons age 65 and older were

living near or below the poverty level.

Support for this program is not limited to the Federal

government. Nationally, there is substantial private

sector/state/local community financial and volunteer support for

Congregate and Home-Delivered Nutrition Services. Although there

are no fees-or charges in this program, older persons are

encouraged to contribute through volunteerism and financial

support to help defray the cost of services. In Fiscal Year

1993, program income, including contributions from participants

was over $180,000,000. These contributions were used to expand

services. Also, volunteers--many of them older Americans--

7

139

136

perform essential tasks such as managing. nutrition sites,

delivering home-delivered meals, record keeping, food service,

nutrition and health education activities. Communities also

support Congregate and Home-Delivered Nutrition Services through

the donation of facilities and space, equipment, utilities,

labor, and food.

H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility Act

Mr. Chairman, next I would like to direct your attention to

Title V of the Personal Responsibility Act, which would

consolidate into a single block grant to States a number of

Federal food assistance programs administered by the USDA,

including food stamps and WIC, but would also include the Older

Americans Act Congregate and Home Delivered Nutrition Services

Programs.

As the head of the Administration on Aging mandated to serve as

the chief advocate for the elderly, and as the head of the agency

with responsibility for the Older Americans Act, I am deeply

concerned about attempts to include the Title III-C Older

Americans Act nutrition program into any consolidation effort and

its impact on the well-being and future of our Nation's elderly

and their families. I strongly feel this would be catastrophic

for millions of senior citizens and their families.

8 -

140

137

The Personal Responsibility Act would significantly reduce

federal support for food and nutrition assistance programs.

Federal funding for 15 domestic food assistance operated by USDA

and other programs designed to meet the needs of specific

vulnerable populations, such as the elderly, would fall by more

than $5 billion in fiscal year 1996 and nearly $31 billion over

five years.

The Personal Responsibility Act would repeal all existing

authority for food assistance programs, all authority to

establish nutrition standards for these programs, and all

authority to provide nutrition education to anyone other than

women, infants and their young children. It would also eliminate

USDA support for elderly meals-on-wheels and congregate feeding.

Food assistance funds would be provided to states in a block

grant, requiring only that the funds be expended to provide food

assistance to individuals who are economically disadvantaged

separately or as members of economically disadvantaged families.

The block grant will require massive redistribution of food

benefits among the States. The proposed formula for distributing

grant funds among the.States bears little relationship to the

existing distribution of program funds.

The combination of the initial cut in funding for the grant and

the statutory floors on spending for services to women, infants,

9 -

1 4 1

138

and children will force States to make difficult decisions.

After setting aside 12 percent for food assistance and nutrition

education to women, infants, and children and 20 percent for

child nutrition programs, the remaining funds are well below the

amount currently projected for the Food Stamp and other nutrition

programs. There simply will not be enough money to support the

current level of services. Every food assistance program and the

people it serves are put at risk, and those who are least

organized and least represented in State policymaking are put at

the greatest risk.

The consolidation of the OAA nutrition programs in this manner

would have a significant adverse effect on the provision of not

only nutrition services to the elderly, but also other supportive

services currently funded under the Older Americans Act.

The Older Americans Act of 1565 has been favored with strong bi-

partisan support over the past 30 years. A national network on

aging includes the Administration on Aging, 57 state and

territorial agencies, some 657 area agencies on aging, more than

25,000 private sector providers and some 500,000 volunteers.

Unlike most agencies with responsibility in a particular

substantive area, such as health, housing, or transportation,

this network focuses on issues affecting the well-being of the

elderly in these and other areas. Unlike most programs, the

services provided by this network are not limited to the poor,

- 10

142

139

but are available without regard to income. The federal

appropriation--$877 million in FY 95--is augmented not only by

state and local match but by in excess of $180 million of

voluntary contributions by the recipients of services and the in-

kind contributions of hundreds of thousands of volunteers,

without whose efforts these services would not exist.

Mr. Chairman, the nutrition services of the Older Americans Act,

with an appropriation of $470 million in FY 95, deliver 100

million meals to about 800,000 older individuals who are

homebound, some recently discharged from a hospital, some capable

of remaining in their home in lieu of much more costly placement

in a nursing home because of these meals and additional

assistance. The nutrition services of the Older Americans Act

also provide about 125 million meals to 2.4 million older

individuals at 15,000 sites in congregate settings, from church

basements to multi-purpose senior centers. In addition to meals,

older individuals may receive nutrition education, nutrition

screening, nutrition counseling and linkage to other services

they need. OAA services and particularly the senior meals

programs have a lengthy history of success. In short, the

programs work and they work well.

Consolidation of the OAA meals services funding into a single

block grant would fundamentally alter the nature and scope of the

programs in a number of ways, for example:

143

140

The proposal would repeal Federal Food Assistance Programs

including Food Stamps, School Lunch, as well as the

congregate and home-delivered nutrition services programs

under the Older Americans Act (OAA).

The proposal would replace these programs with a new Food

Assistance Block Grant program to the states.

The funding available to the states for the Food Assistance

Block Grant program would be based on the number of

economically disadvantaged people in the state.

The Food Assistance Block Grant Program could only be used

to provide food assistance to economically disadvantaged

people; to receive food assistance, individuals would be

required to meet income eligibility criteria. Currently OAA

programs are available regardless of income, but are

targeted to those in greatest social and economic need.

There is no requirement that the states maintain the

existing level of community nutrition services to the

elderly, nor the OAA nutrition programs themselves.

Congregate and Home-Delivered Nutrition Programs are the

glue that binds the OAA network and home and community-based

services together and provides the base funding to most

senior centers in the country. Without these programs,

- 12 -

144

141

senior centers and the home and community-based service

network may cease to exist.

Key Characteristics of the Older Americans Act Network

The inclusion of the nutrition services of the Older Americans

Act in a Food Assistance Program limited to the economically

disadvantaged would, in my judgement, have a severe adverse

effect on millions of senior citizens and their families who have

depended on a very reliable, time-tested, consumer-focused,

flexible and successful program.

The Congregate and Home-Delivered Nutrition Services

Programs of the Older Americans Act (OAA) are much more than

just vouchers for food for economically disadvantaged older

people.

The Senior Nutrition Program is a fundamental part of a

comprehensive home and community-based service system aimed

at keeping older people at home, supporting family

caregivers, and avoiding unnecessary and costly

institutionalization. The Congregate and Home-Delivered

Nutrition Services Programs provide the point of contact

that facilitates essential linkages to other home and

community-based services, such as transportation, home

health aide, chore, etc.. This proposal will unravel the

fabric of this system.

13 -

92-373 - 95 - 6 145

142

The current program is not means-tested, but traditionally

has served those with greatest economic need. It maintains

the dignity of the nutritionally at-risk older persons by

providing mechanisms for participants to contribute

according to their ability to pay.

The Congregate and Home-Delivered Nutrition Services

Programs are federally-funded, state administered programs

that are low-cost, consumer-focused, locally managed and

"owned" programs that work.

The Congregate and Home-Delivered Nutrition Services

Programs have high visibility and are the glue that binds

the OAA network and home and community-based services

together.

The Congregate and Home-Delivered Nutrition Services

Programs leverage other federal, state, and local government

funding as well as community contributions such as space,

use of facilities and equipment, utilities,' and food

donations and private donations of money, volunteer time and

other resources.

Nationally, older participants contributed $180 million to

these programs as well as providing immeasurable amounts of

volunteer labor. By providing the opportunity to contribute

and volunteer, the programs maintain the dignity of older

people and allow them to pay back for the service.

The goal of streamlining programs should be to increase

their responsiveness to consumers. Separating the Senior

- 14

148

143

Nutrition Program from other aging service programs will

make it harder for communities to respond to older people

who have complex and multiple needs.

The Senior Nutrition Program is consumer-focused and has

broad community support due to its flexibility and its role

as point of contact and link to the broader aging service

system.

In many communities, the Congregate and Home-Delivered

Nutrition Services Programs provide the program base to

serve other at-risk and in-need populations including

younger disabled individuals including younger disabled,

veterans, and individuals with AIDS or other diseases.

Nutrition services are cost effective; studies have

indicated that for every dollar spent for nutrition

services, a minimum of three dollars are saved in health

care costs.

Congregate and Home-Delivered Nutrition Services are cost

effective by enabling earlier hospital discharge and

delaying premature institutionalization.

Congregate and Home-Delivered Nutrition Services support

families and caregivers.

Consequences of the Provisions of the PRA

We have heard from numerous State and local officials expressing

concern about the impact of the PRA on elderly nutrition

services. For the most part, these officials believe that the

- 15

147

144

consequences would be deleterious for the elderly population

currently served and the fabric of the Aging Network.

Their concerns may be summarized as follows:

Decrease in service or complete elimination of service to

elders;

Increase in fragmentation of the service systems, resulting

in decreased service to elders;

Decrease in availability of funds, resulting in decreased

service to elders;

Increase in administrative costs, resulting in decrease

services to elders;

Decrease in program accountability;

Decrease in program participation;

Increase in intergenerational conflicts and decreased

intergenerational collaboration;

Decrease in quality of service;

Decrease in services available;

Increase in health care, Medicare costs and

institutionalization, Medicaid costs.

As these services are being linked to home and community care-

based systems, there are increasing pressures for community

nutrition service programs to be effective and efficient.

Through collaborative efforts within the aging network, with

other Federal, State, and local government entities, public and

16 -

.143

145

private partnerships and the business sector, the Administration

on Aging and the aging network are attempting to meet this

challenge. Together we are working to better meet the health and

nutrition and supportive service needs of older Americans from

the well and healthy to the ill, frail, and impaired. This

effort reaffirms our commitment to preserving the quality of life

that older Americans deserve.

In closing, I would like to quote former Congressman and Vice-

President Hubert Humphrey who said in 1977:

The moral test of government is how that government treats

those who are in the dawn of life--the children; those who

are in the twilight of life--the elderly; and those who are

in the shadows of life--the sick, the needy and the

handicapped.

We look to you for guidance and support. I would be happy to

respond to any questions you might have.

- 17 -

149

146

Mr. MARTINEZ. Let me tell you that even if there were 12 percentset-aside, you have to understand that all of the allocations aregoing to be reduced considerably. In the case of Wisconsin, $65 mil-lion. So you'll be taking 12 percent even if it were, unlike what yousay is the truth, Mr. Fershexcuse me, Mr. Lukefahrbut the factis you are requesting to be taking 12 percent of something muchless than the original amount.

The other thing is, I would advise my California colleagues to un-derstand that in California's case they lose 48 percent of theirmoney, 48 percent of the money, that is aside from what they willlose in setting up the new bureaucracy and administration. So youcan consider that maybe into the 12 percent, if it takes 12 percentto administer, and most State administrations cost more than thattoday, that you are going to lose maybe as much as 60, 65 percentof that money that would have gone to feeding the kids.

Let me ask you this. I understand that the paperwork is burden-some and costly. And you have stated it eloquently, Ms. Hurt. Theproblem is that we established that because we needed accountabil-ity in the program because so many of our programs, before hadthey didn't have accountability, the money was abused. And as aresult there were the horror stories about people on food stampsthat didn't deserve to be on food stamps, people getting nutritionalservices that didn't deserve getting nutritional services.

I would prefer to go to the concept that you have: Feed all thekids and you don't have to worry about the qualifications. But ifwe continue to have a needs-based assessment and do an incomeassessment to make a person qualify, wouldn't you think that be-cause those people at the lower level that receive free lunches, theyaren't as likely to change over the next few years. You mightspread out that qualification over a greater amount of time.

Ms. HURT. Sure. We have talked about that, that they wouldapply once when they come into the school district and then at thatapplication would be carried with them throughout their career inthe schools.

You know, I also want to mention that the CRE, the CoordinatedReview Effort, was looked at very carefully to see if in fact therewere overclaims. And the overclaims that were made were verytiny in comparison to the amount of money that was spent in send-ing out the State and Federal reviewers to review the programs.

Mr. MARTINEZ. I am afraid that the paranoia of somebody gettingaway with something has led us here in Washington to now be em-barked on what one of the Members called a demolition derby. Thisis only a part of the demolition derby, to demolish a program thatexisted over a long period of time, that evolved over a good periodof years with a great deal of debate on how it would best serve.Even if the phones were to go, as one of my colleagues conceded,it might be a better idea than sending it to the States, to the schoolboards, and letting the school boards decide.

School boards are elected on a local basis. They have a tendencyto do those things that make them look good to their constituenciesso they can get reelected. That is probably the problem in Washing-ton too.

Earlier someone asked the question, if you don't need nutritionalguidelines, and I think you dolet me ask the questionwouldn't

150

147

the school board have to be required to earmark the money andhave those nutritional guidelines come from the Federal Govern-ment?

Mr. BOEHLJE. Are you talking about nutritional standards or areyou talking about qualifications?

Mr. MARTINEZ. No. Nutritional standards.Mr. BOEHLJE. I think the school boards should be required to fol-

low the national nutritional standards, the standard that is adopt-ed. But I don't think that is the problem. I don't thinkI am notaware of school boards fostering programs that don't fit the nutri-tional standards as a common issue.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Let me tell you something. Initially, one of thereasons why they were developing national standards is becauseinitially they were people that were claiming ketchup was a vegeta-ble.

Mr. BOEHLJE. That is right. That won't done at the local schoolboard level.

Mr. MARTINEZ. I think you need to be concerned about what thatis.

But the other part of the question was, the earmarking, even tothe school board, of those funds to be used for that program?

Mr. BOEHLJE. Yes, I think it would be used for that program. Isthat the question?

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes.Mr. BOEHLJE. Yes, I am sure they would.Mr. MARTINEZ. Thank you.Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Chairman GOODLING. Thank you.According to USDA, you pick up $650 million and I lose $150

million. So I am not very enthused about that exchange.Mr. MARTINEZ. That is why you should vote against it.Chairman GOODLING. Mr. Ballenger.Mr. BALLENGER. I was going to use the same statistic. I think the

USDA statistics, we all question how accurate they are. I was goingto bring up the fact that he does gain, of all the States, in this sta-tistical analysis they have got, California comes up smelling like arose, but the rest of us do get hurt.

I personally would like to congratulate Mr. Temple-West to formaking the decisions, actually taking the possibility that thismight occur and what would be a better way. But at least you gaveconstructive, shall we say, directions to reduce costs rather thanjust sit back and say you can't do it to us.

I also am very strongly supportive of the idea, I knowI waschairman of the county commissioners back. home. And we startedMeals on Wheels and feeding the elderly, and that 38 percent thatyou all get in your State is probably equaled in North Carolina.

I would lie to say that just as an aside, we found it was greatto have our fittle Baptist church involved in the food for. the elder-ly, and there were ladies that came in in mink coats and so forththat were very happy to sit there and have a meal and talked tothe fellows that were just, you know, homeless. And there was asocial event that occurred there that probably was very importantin their lives.

151

148

I personally feel if you look at the big numbers in here, theplaces that really where the money goes, I am all for WIC and aid-ing children, but everybody I think in this country recognizes thatfood stamps are probably one of the most misused programs thatwe have got.

I mean, these college kids whose families have plenty of moneybut they are in college now and they are no longer on their family'ssupport, drawing food stamps, it is a system where if we can actu-ally get the Federal Government to enforce regulations where foodstamps only went to people that deserved it rather than people whojust happened to be able to fit the proper perspective at that time,there is a lot of money that could be generated aside from the addi-tion of trying to reduce overhead.

I personally feel that something has to be done. I think some-thing will be done about the welfare program. And as far as WICand other programs that almost everybody recognizes are good,how we go about giving the governmentyou have got to realize,the governors are just as political as we are, and when you takea program as popular as WIC and give them the flexibility to dowhat they want to, they are going to be under the same gun thatwe are under. And I think that those governors, I hope, are prac-tical enough to look at where the real weakness in the totalamount of money that we are spending, which is food stamps, iswhere the direction should come.

And that is an editorial statement. I have no question, Mr.Chairman.Chairman GOODLING. I thank you.Mr. Green.Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Since Mr. Ballenger didn't take all his time, could you add thatto mine?Chairman GOODLING. No. I was thinking of saving that for my-

self.Mr. GREEN. I appreciate the panel being here today. I served a

lot of years in the legislature before I came to Washington a coupleof years ago, in the early 1980s in Texas, and by the way, the re-port from the Department of Agriculture tells us that Texas willlose over $1 billion in funding if we go to block grants.

So hopefully even, whether you are Democrat or Republican, wewill look at that, because I think in Texas we don't provide a greatdeal of social services, and oftentimes these programs are the basic,and so there is nothing to build on. But losing over a billion dollarsfor WIC or for seniors or for the school breakfast program justdoesn't make any sense, because I know in my district what it hasused for. And again, I agree with Mr. Ballenger. The senior citizensnutrition program is a great program, the WIC program, and thisis in an inner city in Houston, and the school breakfast program.

Let me relate a story. I have served a long time in State officeand represented different kinds of districts. I representedand myHouse district was a pure middle class district, very few childrenwho may have been eligible for the school breakfast program. Inthe early 1980s the legislature mandated on to the schools to pro-vide that school breakfast program.

152

149

A good friend of mine who is still the superintendent of myschool district where my kids went, and a number of people thatare deputy superintendents, although we don't have that many, itis a smaller district, were upset we were going to mandate that onto the schools. The school breakfast program was terrible. Theywere going to have to add personnel in the mornings to providebreakfast.

And I voted for it. And he was really upset about it and evencame to some meetings and talked about it.. Within one year thatschool superintendent, again, who is still there, served many years,came to me and he said, "I was glad that the legislature did thatbecause we couldn't have done it locally." And he said, "Not onlydo the teachers like it, but the cafeteria workers who they wereconcerned about coming in early," he said the children are gettinga breakfast program and they are starting early.

And when I heard some of the comments earlier about it was ne-glect for a parent to have to get their child to go to school earlybecause they have to go to work, I think we have to come into thereal world, because my wife and I both work. Even in the legisla-ture in Texas, you get $600 whether you earn it or not, so you haveto work at some other job. Our children in elementary school didn'thave to be there until 6:30 a.m. or 8 a.m. Thank goodness I hada job that I could be flexible and take them, but there are a lot ofparents who don't have that option, who have to get their child atschool at 6:30 in the morning to be at the job at 7 a.m. We don'twant to give up that job, particularly not since November 8.

And so in the real world out there, those parents are not neglect-ing their children. They are trying to live the American dream andmaybe have two incomes or maybe have a single parent who hasa job who needs to \get that child to school and can't provide thatbreakfast because of time. You want to get them up at 4:30 a.m.so they can eat breakfast and they get to school an hour or an hourand a half early?

So maybe under welfare reform we could pay for early childhoodday-care. That is a good\ program that I thought that could be good.We could mandate a lot back to the States, and the States mayhave to do it, because if the State of Texas loses a billion dollars,my legislature isn't going to be happy to tell our seniors or tell ourparticipants in WIC or our school breakfast program they are notgoing to do it. That is going to be money that is going to have tocome from the people of Texas that they are paying now to Wash-ington.

And they are going to have to come up with it or drop the pro-gram. And they will drop those programs. Some of those people willbe dropped and will lose that. And I am worried that we will loseit. And let me just ask one question, since I have got my yellowlight now.

The 30 percent cut in the funding, and I agree we could stream-line the program, all the testimony I have read, there are improve-ments we could do without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But the 30 percent cut in the funding, is that just adminis-trative? Are we actually going to tell some seniors now, "You arenot going to have your lunch program," or a child, "You are notgoing to have your breakfast program," or a WIC mother, like Mr.

15a

150

Fersh said, "You are not going to have it?" Thirty percent cut, weare actually getting into the programs, we are not just cutting ad-ministration.

Mr. FERSH. I think the answer is unquestionably, whether it is30 or even 10 percent, you get into benefits. I think the importantthing is there is no simple answer on administration. You still haveto be intake. You still have to check people's incomes. There areverification requirements. You still have to be people who super-vise. You have to deal with a whole host of other issues just to runa program.

And so while you might be on the margins, and I think we allapplaud the same application of paperwork, it is a small fractionof overall cost. Once you get past the notion that people aren't justgoing to come in the door free to these programs, you have somedelivery structure, and frankly, especially in WIC, you have to havethe other support services to make it a success. So we really aretalking about cutting muscle here, not just skimming off a bureauc-racy.

Mr. GREEN. I thank the Chairman.I thank the panel.Chairman GOODLING. Mr. Knollenberg.Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and

panel, thank you for your testimony. I have been in and out thismorning a good bit.

The question I raise with you may have been asked, but I haveheard some comments about helping everybody who needs it,maybe some of those who want it. We could discuss that, I guess,for a long time. But I want to dwell on one real point, and it seemsto meand I have asked this question of a variety of people, a va-riety of panels, not just in this area, in this arena, it may be inthe insurance arena, mandates, what have you.

But if the goal, and I think it is, if the goal is to help all of thosewho need it in terms of the variety of programs that you have here,what is the magic of the Federal Government to being the entitythat makes the distribution? I have met with people in my homedistrict, and many are saying things like, these are people likeyourself, they are in the same capacity that you are, at least some-thing similar, and they never said, "It ain't broke, it doesn't needfixing, don't fix it." And I hear a little bit of that coming up herethis among.

But truly, what is the magic of the Federal Government beingthe dispenser of funds in administering this program? I would turnto any one of you for comment.

Ms. Hurt.Ms. HURT. I think that the Federal Government provides the na-

tional nutrition policy, and what our goals are for providing chil-dren with good nutrition. And I don't know if that same overallgoal would be met if we did it State by State.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Why not?Ms. HURT. Well, because each State has different politics within

the States and different priorities.You know, we are not totally opposed to reviewing how we fund

these programs. We would like to work with you. We are saying

154

151

that as structured, under the PRA, it won't work for us, becauseit doesn't give us the flexibility that we need.

But we need to maintain national nutrition policy and nationalphilosophy and nutrition standards.

Mr. ICNOLLENBERG. Any other panel member want to comment?Mr. FERSH. If I might, I am not sure what portions you may have

heard before, but I think what is important to understand is thatin many ways what you are prescribing is what existed 30 yearsago. With the exception

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I am not prescribing anything.Mr. FERSH. In terms ofMr. KNOLLENBERG. I am asking a question. No prescription here.Mr. FERSH. Okay. What you are perhapsMr. KNOLLENBERG. I am asking the question, who can do it bet-

ter. There is no prohibition on analysis or investigation. I assumethat would be the case with all of you. You are not arguing thatwe should prohibit any kind of investigation of what works ordoesn't work about the Federal programs.

So I have no prescription at this point. So the floor is open foryou to comment.

Mr. FERSH. I understand your comment, and I agree. I thinkwhat you have prompted is a very healthy heavy examination thatall of us want to be part of. It is.

President Nixon who more than anybody claimed this as a Fed-eral responsibility in 1969. There were problems throughout thecountry. There were people going hungry. There was grossmalnourishment in some areas. There was insufficient health sta-tus of people entering our armed forces. And there was a tremen-dously mixed response within the States.

Even today, there are some States that, aside from food stamps,provide welfare benefits for a family of three of $120 a month tocover every need they have. For some people there is a sense thatmaybe there has been some irregular performance. It doesn't meanthat some governors couldn't do a better job than the Federal Gov-ernment. But I think the point you heard is the one that is over-whelming.

This system is not broken. There are some further improvementsand further freedoms to be given the State and local administra-tors. But I think fundamentally what we are saying is that in orderto respond to recessions, if a State has a recession, right now thereis some protection, it is like a pooled insurance risk. The countryresponds. More kids need school lunch in your State, if there is arecession, you will get the help you need, and when the recessionpasses, then the needs will go down. The same is true for the foodstamp program.

It is a national problem. And we certainly think there needs tobe a huge investment, not in terms of detail, but an investment ofthe country in the entire nutritional status of all Americans.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Anybody else?Mr. TEMPLE-WEST. I would like to say that I think it is cheaper

for the Federal Government to do it.Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Cheaper? Why?

155

152

Mr. TEMPLE-WEST. Because if each State has to set up its ownUSDA, its own bureaucracy to exercise these programs, that is 52times the cost of

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Wait a minute. That is their own idea. Whycan't they do it on a local basis withoutis it 1/52 of the entiretyof what is being spent now?

I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying, but amposing the question, why do you have to have it factored 52 times?That is what the governors are crying for. They want some flexibil-ity. Maybe this is one of those things.

Mr. TEMPLE-WEST. I would totally agree with you they shouldhave flexibility. I meanbut I am not sure that the creation ofrules and the administration of the programsthey are going tohave to set up audit standards. They are going to have to duplicatewhat now is. If they keep the programs and the law says they willkeep the programs, then they are going to have toI am going tobe regulated by somebody. SomebodyGovernor Ridge is going tohave to send somebody to me to see that I am doing it right. Andthat is going to cost money.

Right now all of those rules and regulationswe just receivedanother 13 pages, 14 pages of rules and regulations, by the way.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Maybe you will only need one or two if it wasadministered by the State.

Mr. TEMPLE-WEST. Well, I doubt that. I mean, I doubtnobodyis going to give me money without telling me what to do with it.No government.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Not the Federal and not the State.Mr. TEMPLE-WEST. Not the State. No.Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I appreciate your comments. Thank you very

much.Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Chairman GOODLING. Mr. Owens.Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I have a question, but I would like

to begin with an editorial response to the comments made by mygood friend, Mr. Cunningham, who has now left, but I would likefor it to be on the record.

These programs will not be only improved by passing them downto the State and local level. Some of the most secretive, mean-spir-ited, corrupt and incompetent government in the world exists atthe State and local level of the United States. It is just sloganizing.

Mr. Cunningham linked this program with Communism. I didn'tquite get the linkage. But this is not Communism. It is commonsense. It is common sense to feed people. Food is the least expen-sive way to keep people healthy.

I think you are to be congratulated for doing something verybasic. Yes, there is some fraud and mismanagement, because inmany programs administered by human beings, there is going tobe some fraud and mismanagement and eternal vigilance nec-essary.

But the greatest fraud is, I assure you, not these kinds of pro-grams, it is people always auditing and reexamining and analyzingin areas like the savings and loan swindle, which was the greatestswindle in the history of civilization. And we have not auditedthem, we have not really closed that chapter out. They have gotten

156

153

away with most of those hundreds of billions of dollars that theygot away with. If we could recapture some of the money swindledaway from taxpayers there, we would have a lot of money to feedkids.

My question, however, is one that might have been asked before,because I think it is very basic. I came into the room late, but letme ask again. In the block grant process, which is a Pontius Pilateprocess, the Federal Government washes their hands and passes itdown to the States, usually they will get less money than they havebefore. If they don't get cut right away, they get cut later on.

When that happens, and the block grant is there, and in Novem-ber or December you find that there has been an increase in thenumber of people who are hungry, and you have run out of moneyin November or December, can you turn to a private sector pool?Do you have private funds?

Is this an area where points of light are operating effectively?Billionaires will give money to museums and to operas and so

forth. Some billionaires, thank God, will give money to publicschools. But I don't know of any examples of giving money to takecare of feeding people.

Is there any private sector you can turn to or do any of you knowof the charitable institutions that are really heavily involved in thisarea?

Mr. TEMPLE-WEST. My office also provides food that we getfoodwith resources that we get from the private sector. Your questionis a very good one.

Mr. OWENS. Can it fill the gap that might result?Mr. TEMPLE-WEST. No, and I want to give you the example why.

In Philadelphia, let's just take that, about $200 million a yearcomes in in food stamps, into the city of Philadelphia. In the entirecharitable contributions for food to the food bank, food to soupkitchens, all charitable contributions for food probably do notamount to more than $20 million, total.

If food stamps were cut 10 percent, that is $20 million. There isjust no way, no way that the charitable sector could double whatit is doing now. Maybe 10 percent more, but just no way. It justcouldn't happen.

Mr. FERSH. Mr. Owens, if I might interject, on December 20 oflast year, there was a press conference held by Second Harvest, theNational Network of Food Banks, Salvation Army, which normallydoes not speak out on public policy issues, Catholic Charities anda series of other charitable organizations in which they simply saidthey had deep concerns about either the deep cutbacks or the blockgrants. Most describe themselves as being pushed to the limit al-ready to deal with the problems they have.

And then the president of Catholic Charities said something Ithought was very on point. He said, Ten years ago two-thirds of ourmoney went to job counseling, pregnancy prevention, whateverthe counseling and empowerment kinds of services they provided tohelp people move their lives forward. He said, Now two-thirds ofour money goes to feed and clothe and shelter people. And we areno longer in the business of getting people out of poverty.

Mr. OWENS. Thank you.

157

154

Chairman GOODLING. For those of us who have not had a big-city experience, we have fonder thoughts and memories of localgovernment. I just thought I would throw that in.

Mr. Fawell.Mr. FAWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.I am sorry I was not present when all of you did give your testi-

mony, and so I have a problem in that regard, but I have readsome of your statements, and Joan Taylor, of course, is a constitu-ent of mine coming from the 13th congressional district in Illinois.I know her very well and the deep interest she has always had inthe Older Americans Act and the various programs. And we havegone through some battles in regard to the Older Americans Act.

And I can well understand the concern, Ms. Taylor, which youexpress in regard to whether or not the nutrition programs underthe Older Americans Act would be treated as a welfare program.

I frankly would be concerned about that, too. But I guess unlesssomeone has been relatively close to what goes on there, you won'tperhaps fully understand why the program has always functionedin that way.

I suppose the problems that all of you face and all of us face inCongress too is the fact that we are talking about some monu-mental change. And whenever we talk about monumental change,there has to be monumental fear that goes along with that, be-cause, well, what is going to happen to our program?

We may not actually be in love with the way that the area agen-cies are governed, for instance, under the Older Americans Actfrom Washington. But on the other hand, at least we know all thefaults of the program and its detriments, et cetera, and we arecomfortable with that, and we will be uncomfortable when we gothrough a transition and we fear it may not end up with the Statesand/or the local governments much more involved here, having asmuch as what we have right now.

On the other hand, I can recall being vitally concerned, for in-stance, in regard to the distribution of funds under the OlderAmericans Act, and I know, Joan, can you remember how wefought with the Illinois legislature and we finally got a distributionformula that was much fairer to the senior citizens, especially themass movement that had gone out of Chicago into the suburbanarea, a much fairer account for minorities, et cetera.

But although we won the battle there, we lost the battle for sev-eral more years trying to convince Washington that they had avery unfairto minorities and to seniorsmode of distribution.

And I know that in your testimony, Ms. Taylor, you adequatelypointed out streamlining that could take place in reference to howthe Older Americans Act is now handled via from the Washingtonoffice.

And so I would like to just refer you to that and ask, do youthink that you might have better chances of getting your streamlin-ing through, not held up, as you know we have been before, aboutnot able to even ask for contributions under existing regulation?Isn't it possible that, assuming we can get over treating peopleunder the Older Americans Act asand on welfare, that we couldhave the streamlining that you are talking about, more possible, if

158

155

it is State and/or local government regulations rather than Wash-ington regulations?

It is a terribly long question, more of a statement than a ques-tion. But if you could handle that, I would appreciate it.

Ms. TAYLOR. First of all, I want to say that I agree with Mr.Fersh here when he said that we want to work with you as youstruggle with the bigger issue. And I feel honored to be here, atyour invitation.

At the same time there are other people that have more of asense than I do of the big policy issues. I am down at the local leveldealing with the day-to-day problems. Having disqualified me,though, I do have myself already, but I do have some ideas aboutwhat you are saying.

As I listen to the people here talking about the school lunch pro-grams and the other food programs, I just again feel that .the OlderAmericans Act as it has worked and is working now and hasworked for many years, is a very efficient system.

We don't have to deal with tons and tons of paperwork. There isstill always we are going to feel that there is too much. And I dothink there is someI talked with my area agency director, and hesaid, for example, if there were fewer titles under the Older Ameri-cans Act, several titles have been added that are very smallamounts of money but require a lot of administration to do, thatthat was one way that he feels that there could be less administra-tive costs at his level.

But overall, I just have the feeling we are in such a good positionnow, and we don't know what it would be. One of our fears is thatin Illinois, as you know, Medicaid payments are about six monthsbehind, and many nursing homes and hospitals have closed. Ouragency doesn't have that amount of money in reserve. We couldn'toperate for six months.

And one last thought: You mentioned about the donation, the cli-ent contribution. That is an area that I feel, again, that peopleshould examine and look at as to how we could increase that andhow we could expect people who have money to pay more.

Right now, as you know, it is a confidential donation and we arenot even allowed to say to people, We expect to you pay if you canafford to pay. But many of them do, but it would be good to lookat those things.

Thank you.Mr. FAWELL. Thank you.Chairman GOODLING. Mr. Fawell learned from Mr. Lantos on the

Foreign Affairs Committee. He used the five minutes to lecture andthen I don't have the courage to say, You can't respond.

Mr. FAWELL. I was never on the Foreign Affairs Committee. Ilearned all by myself.

Chairman GOODLING. Since you are his witness, we allowed a lit-tle leeway there.

Mr. Payne.Mr. Engel, I am sorry.Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.We share membership on the same two committees, this commit-

tee and Foreign Affairs, so I think we have learned how thesetricks work.

159

156

I want to, like Mr. Owens, my colleague, clear the air from Mr.Cunningham's remarks and state for the record that I am not anadmirer of Karl Marx but I am an admirer of nutrition programsfor both senior citizens and younger people.

What disturbs me in this rush, this trend to look upon blockgrants as a panacea, I served for 12 years in the New York Statelegislature before coming to Congress. This is now my seventh yearin Congress. And I remember in the 1980s, we heard about blockgrants, and we were all very happy and hopeful because we felt atleast the States would be able to make our own decision.

Block grants, to my way of thinking, only work when you fundthem at 100 percent. If you are going to fund them at less thanthat, 75 percent, 70 percent, our States or municipalities are goingto be deciding frankly where the pain is going to be spread andwhat programs are going to be cut. So I don't look upon blockgrants as a panacea.

Coming from New York, which is a high-cost-of-living State, Iworry about means testing and I worry about all these otherthings, because it costs quite a good deal to exist in a region likethe New York City metropolitan region than it does at some ruralarea in middle America.

When I look at the Personal Responsibility Actand by the way,this attitude about how we are going to have personal responsibil-ity or individual responsibility, one of my colleagues mentioned wehave to get away from entitlements, but more towards personal in-dividual responsibility. Well, I agree that individual and personalresponsibility are important, but quite frankly, there are a heck ofa lot of people in this country who were born into pretty rotten con-ditions and they are personally responsible, but I think cir-cumstances make it impossible for them to try to help themselvesby themselves. And they do need the help of government, and theydo need the help of people who are under better circumstancesthan them.

It certainly makes a hell of a much better sense to me to havea national program. We are, after all, one country, than it is to say,Well, the States can kind of set up their own programs and we willsee a return of forum shopping, people jumping around and around.Years ago people used to come to New York City to collect welfarebecause New York City had the most generous welfare paymentsin the country. And part of the reason it did was because New Yorkwas a high-cost-of-living State.

So I think it is easy to get into cliches here and sloganeering, butthe question is, what is going to be the impact of this? When I lookat my home county, Bronx County in New York City, one of thepoorest counties, frankly, in the entire country, and I see that 62percent, it is projected, of seniors will no longer be able to attendtheir centers because of means testing under the Personal Respon-sibility Act, it frightens me.

When I see that over 120,000 individuals age 60 or over in NewYork City, which is 9.4 percent of the city's elderly, are legal,legalnot illegallegal resident aliens who would be cut off fromhealth, that frightens me, because we still have to service thosepeople.

160

157

When I see that this Personal Responsibility Act will mean a 12percent reduction in funding for meal programs for seniors, thatfrightens me. Frail seniors in my home county unable to receivehome-delivered meals because of means testing, 66 percent wouldlose it, and senior centers at risk of closing in my home county, 46percent because of this new so-called Personal Responsibility Act,frightens the hell out of me.

So I would just like to make that as a comment, and I would likeanyone that cares to comment on my comments to please say a fewwords.

Ms. TAYLOR. Well, I share with you your great concern. Theother thing is that administratively, if those people are not served,the senior center is likely going to close down because they can'tafford it. And again, the people go into nursing homes sooner, theygo into hospitals more often. One of the main reasons that olderpeople go into hospitals is malnutrition or dehydration.

And I do want to emphasize that senior meals are much morethan food. They are socialization. They are a substitute. Many,most of the older people we work with are over 75, a lot of themare over 85. They have lost their spouse, many of them have lostchildren, many of them are alone, and the only person they cangive as an emergency is their doctor or their landlord. We areamazed at the number of people that are alone.

Our volunteer goes in and socializes with that senior, talks withthem at lunchtime, checks up on them, because if they don't an-swer the door, we go into an emergency mode to find out why.

Chairman GOODLING. The administration on aging went prettywild with their interpretation of what the Personal ResponsibilityAct does or doesn't do. But I guess each organization will do that,protect their flanks or whatever.

Governor Castle.Mr. CASTLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.I had to give a speech on international monetary policy today for

another subcommittee, a propitious day to do it. So I did miss yourstatements. I do apologize for that.

I did not hear all the questions, but I was here for Mr.Cunningham's discussion, which seems to have provoked everyround of discussion since then. I would just like to share mythoughts with you, because you have probably answered everyquestion possible.

For better or for worse, we are clearly entering into a new age,and while you are here to some degree responding to H.R. 4, whichdeals with the nutrition programs, among other things, particularlythe block granting concepts, potential cuts that come from all ofthat, this discussion will not end there.

Obviously things have to happen in the House, they have to hap-pen in the Senate, they have to happen in the White House. Butbigger things are happening too. The governors were in town.There is a discussion of federalism, shifting resources .back to theStates and States managing things and them shifting down to thelocal governments, throughout agencies, be they schools for chil-dren or senior citizens or whatever it may be.

And I understand your concerns. I frankly am one, having hadsome responsibility in this area, I am very supportive of nutrition

161

158

programs almost across the board because I do believe they providehelp where help is needed. I do not think, by the way, there is alot of fraud or even a tremendous amount of waste in these pro-grams. I don't come at this from that point of view.

On the other hand, I don't know of a single large national pro-gram, generally Federal in its subsidies, that goes back to theStates and then out to local governments or out to local agenciesthat doesn't have room for improvement. And probably in that im-provement, in all fairness, savings of cost. And that should be oneof the purposes in improving it. I don't think defending the statusquo is the answer.

I am not one who is for necessarily cutting completely all thearts and public broadcasting, whatever. On the other hand, it is ri-diculous to say we shouldn't have any cuts at all. I ride Amtrakback to Delaware every night that I can, but I am aware that Am-trak needs some tightening up as well.

I understand your purpose in the testimony, and that is to showthat some broad-based block granting could be detrimental orwhatever. And there are some exceptions to this. But for the mostpart, you are not explaining alternatives to us in terms of how wecan handle some reductions in costs and efficiencies or whatever itmay be.

I am not necessarily asking you to answer what would be yourreasoning for that. But I would just hope in your lobbying as weget our calls from our senior citizensand we get them. That therewould be some planning that is going on at the tables about howwe can make these programs more efficient.

Frankly, we need to reduce some costs and we need to make itmore efficient. That is what the Republicans are trying to do withthe block grants. Nobody is trying to take food out of the mouthsof anybody who would need it. I don't think anyone is approachingit from that point of view at all. But everybody feels we can tightenthat up.

I think, as in all of these programs, we can tighten up from thebottom up. Should we have more means testing, should we perhapsbe serving fewer people, or are there people who could pay more?

Let's face it, a lot of people unwilling to pay another dime forlunch or breakfast for their child, whatever it may be, are spendingmoney extraneously.

So I hope we can reach a meeting point that wouldn't end upbeing a fight between people. I didn't really intend to leave time,but if you want to take 20 seconds to say something, fine. If not,I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. TAYLOR. I think we all welcome being in on the process oflooking at ways of being cost effective and more efficient. We allwant to be part of that process. It takes time.

Mr. CASTLE. And this hearing probably doesn't lend itself to that.I understand that is why you are here. But I hope you understand,that is the goal.

I get the idea everyone wants to show who is most mean-spirited.That is not what this is about. We want to make government moreefficient and less expensive but still provide essential services.

I do yield back, Mr. Chairman.Chairman GOODLING. Mr. Payne.

162

159

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.I too apologize for being unable to hear the testimony. Under the

new rules that were put in, it makes it very difficult for us becausewe have to be in two places at the same time.

But I wanted to also have, if the Chairman will allow, the recordbe left open. I would like to put into the record a correction thatI indicated last time when Representative Cunningham was here.Representative Cunningham indicated that 30 percent of New Jer-sey welfare recipients were getting welfare from New York andNew Jersey. And at the time I asked if I could correct it for therecord, and it was 1.5 percent. And I wanted to add that to therecord so that it is clarified.

Chairman GOODLING. Without objection.Mr. PAYNE. One of the things that is very alarming and disturb-

ing to me is that a lot of misinformation goes out. Misinformationreally flies wild.

When you throw out 30 percent of New Jersey's welfare recipi-ents are collecting welfare in New York, of course that tends tomove that code word. There are a lot of code words going on, andcertain words mean certain things. Then when you fabricate ormaybe are just misinformed, you then really conjure up even moremean-spiritedness in people who say, Look at that, how about that,what I was thinking all along was right.

So things like that disturb me a great deal. And it is very dif-ficult to straighten up, clean up the record once it has been messedup. But I do intend to have that into the record so that the factswill be clear.

I justmy time has almost run out, but the whole question ofchildren's programs and seniors' programs that now will be throwninto one particular type of a grant, and as you mentioned, there isa lot of other kinds of activities that go on, like the WIC programis more than feeding, but it deals with health screening and otherthings, senior nutrition program brings people together and theycan talk and chat and so forth.

With the fact that all of this will be put into one grant, what doyou think will happen in the case of a recession when the Statesare simply given the block grants and the need, of course, increasesin time of a recession? Could any of you respond to what you willbe doing in your local areas?

Ms. HURT. I think that is one of our greatest concerns, is thatwe will be unable to respond to that. If we have X number of dol-lars come into our district and then a plant closes or there is aunion strike or some other kind of thing that puts families in needof the program that we offer.

Mr. TEMPLE-WEST. It will depend on the State. If the State hasa balanced budget requirement, they are not going to be able tochange their budget. They are not going to be able to get any moremoney. It will really depend State by State. States that have sur-plus maybe want to use them. States that don't, won't. I think itwill be on a State-by-State basis.

Mr. PAYNE. Do you know of any States that have surpluses?Mr. TEMPLE-WEST. Pennsylvania.Mr. PAYNE. Really? That is good.

16 3

160

Mr. LUKEFAHR. As a physician in Texas I can tell you there areseveral health programs in Texas that actually happens is they runout of money in about the ninth month and just shut down. It isextremely disconcerting to not just my patients but also to myselfto suddenly one day not be able to provide a piece of medical equip-ment for someone, as a for instance.

And I just would bewhen you get into something as basic asfood, to only be able to provide something nine or 10 months outof the year would also be a major problem.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much.Chairman GOODLING. The 30 percent figure is probably, some of

that, misinformation that is being circulated all over the countryalso.Well, I want to compliment you for your testimony, because you

could have come and just indicated that there is no room forchanges and nothing should ever change. You know and I knowthat change is inevitable, it is something we all fear, but it is goingto happen.

So when Mr. Fersh gets to pages 8 and 9, I may not have readtoo much before pages 8 and 9, but when he gets to pages 8 and9, that is very, very important to us.

As I told the committee when we had our hearing on welfare re-form, that if my side of the aisle believes there is some quick fix,some easy answer, we are not going to accomplish anything. Andif the other side of the aisle believes that everything is workingbeautiful out there and therefore we don't need any changes, noth-ing is going to happen either. And the same program will continueto operate.

We do have a big responsibility. And I thank you for the sugges-tions you made, Mr. Boehlje, and Mr. Temple-West had suggestionsin relationship to regulations. Ms. Hurt and all of you had rec-ommendations, and that is important to us as we try to write some-thing that will be the best for all concerned, including future gen-erations, taxpayers, and everybody. I appreciate the fact that youunderstand that isn't easy to do.

I would not promote the stigma issue, I think, if I were on thatside of the table, simply because I think it is adults who createstigmas, not children. When we were allowedand I was a highschool principalto have youngsters work in the cafeteria, theyworked with great pride. The other children admired the fact, asa matter of fact, that they were working. Being the last of six chil-dren in a family during the Depression, the farm was the onlything that saved us, but when dark came, then I also worked ata service station, and I was proud to do that. I was proud to doit in college in order to get through college.

So I don't thinkI think we create the stigmas, and maybe indoing that, take away instilling pride and self-respect and so on.I am not going to give you the same lecture that Dr. Weldon gaveyou, but I think there is something to be said for that.

We are well aware of the competition. Those of us who do notserve on the Appropriations Committee, and those of us who arelobbyists out there understand what competition is all about, be-cause we have to find the good friends that we have on the Appro-priations Committee and compete with anyone else who is trying

184

I;

161

to get the Appropriations Committee to hear what they have tosay. So we are well aware of the competition angle.

As I said in the beginning, I want you to be sure that you under-stand that whatever we do, if I am a part of it, there really hasto be some very tight indications to whomever receives the blockgrant, what it is we expect from the money that is being spent.And I expect to be very zealous in checking to see whether you aredelivering what it is we expect. And as I indicated, the Speaker hasalso picked that up and indicated to all Chairmen that that is theway it should go.

I also want you to know that we do have leeway. There is a 100 -day effort out there. But we do have leeway, as the leadership hasindicated, to come to them with better ideas than they have andtake the concept and make it work. That is why we serve on theauthorizing committee.

I am always reminding the Budget Committee and the Appro-priations Committee that we know the programs, they don't. Andtherefore they should have enough sense to listen to what it is wehave to say, because if they don't, they may get into some real dif-ficulty down the road.

And I think they understand that.Mr. Kildee.Mr. KILDEE. Just to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having these

hearings.I think we had a very excellent panel here today. We all know

change comes but change should be to improve a program. I wouldwork with these people to try to improve programs rather than toserve fewer people who are in need.

But I really appreciate the fact that you are having these hear-ings, Mr. Chairman. I used to sit in that chair myself and I knowthe responsibilities you have, not as Chairman of the full commit-tee, but a subcommittee. I know the tremendous, awesome respon-sibility that you have, and that you take that very seriously.

Chairman GOODLING. Which has grown dramatically since No-vember 8.

Mr. Fawell.Mr. FAwELL. I have no further questions.Chairman GOODLING. Again, I thank you very much for your tes-

timony. Oh, excuse me. Mr. Hutchinson has requested that the tes-timony of Phil Peters, Executive Director, Area Agency on Aging innorthwest Arkansas be submitted into the record. Without objec-tion, the testimony will be made part of the hearing record.

I might say that the Area Agency on Aging in my district, all ofthem, are very outstanding contributors to the betterment of life inour particular area.

[The information follows:]

165

162

Phil PetersExecutive Director

Area Agency on Aging of Northwest Arkansas

Several million older Americans are going hungry today. In thiscountry. With all of our best efforts. This is not all a matter of income,although lower income elders are more likely to be malnourished or hungry.Older people may be malnourished for a variety of other reasons includinghealth, isolation, depression, dementia, and lack of transportation.Malnourishment leads to a much greater risk of health problems, and amalnourished elder becomes an easy target for such dread diseases andconditions as dementia, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, osteoporosis, andfalling injuries.

The focus of the Older American's Act programs, particularly thenutritional programs scheduled for elimination by the Personal ResponsibilityAct, is to prevent older people from becoming more dependent on others,from having their health deteriorate, from having to enter an institution suchas a hospital or nursing home by providing the little bit of assistancenecessary to help them stay In their own homes with as much independenceand dignity possible. These nutrition programs are the only programs withthis charter, and they have been woefully underfunded while the agingpopulation, especially the 85+ population, has virtually exploded. Thisdoesn't make economic sense to underfund nutritional services for this mostfragile segment of our population when it only leads to greater human endeconomic costs to society. For the cost of one day in a hospital, a nutritiousmeal can be provided to an 87 year old widow every day for a year. For thelack of that necessary nutrition, she may be prematurely institutionalized atthe cost to Medicaid of over $20,000 a year.

One in four persons over the age of 65 in this country are

malnourished. 8$ of the persons over 65 are hungry. They eat one meal aday or less. They do without food to buy medicine or pay electricity bills.They have nowhere to turn. Congress is now proposing to turn them over tothe states. The buck does not stop here in Washington with this problem.It goes to the states. With reduced levels of funding end no requirementthat states spend a single cent of the proposed nutrition block grant onelderly nutrition. This is a heartless act.

Let me quote one of your members, Rep. Charles Schumer of New York,"Let's remember the reason we are reforming welfare. We are hoping tochange the habits of people on public assistance and to encourage work.What do we accomplish by cutting food aid to shut-in seniors? What habits

166

ti

163

are we trying to change/ As you can see, food to the elderly does notbelong in welfare reform."

Please eliminate the Older American's Act nutrition programs from thePersonal Responsibility Act's nutrition block grant program.

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony.

I have included two attachments:1) A statement from Nancy Johnson, a meal service provider inRogers, Arkansas.2) A Wall Street Journal article on the growing nutritional crisis facingthe elderly.

167

164

OFFICE OF HUMAN CONCERN, Roger,, ArkansasAGING SERVICES PROGRAM

1995PROGRAM iNFORMATION TO SE RELAYED TO CONGRESS

Presently, our Senior Nutrition Program, as currently implemented under Title III of the Older AmericansAct, In 1994 provided over 75.001 congregate mails, and 93,426 home delivered meals to older peopleat our 5 Multi-Purpose Senior Activity Centers located In our service area of Benton, Carroll and MadisonCounties. Not only are Nutrition Programs the most visible services and considered by many as thecenterpiece of the Older Americans Act, but also our Congregate Nutrition Sites are access points formany of the other services such as transportation and socialization which are funded through this Act. Inaddition to the 166,421 meals being served, we also provided 10,094 socialization unitsand 34.067transportation units of services to older pople at OUT congregate sites. Over 2,000 participantshavereceived these services last year.

Our Senior Nutrition Program is a fundamental part of a comprehensive service system aimed atkeeping older pople at home, supporting family caregivers, and avoiding unnecessary and costlyInstitutionalization. Our Nutrition Program needs to be supported and expanded and may well be amongour most wisely spent public dollars. Our Senior Nutrition Program Is a time-tested, successful exemptsof a low cost, locally managed program. Our Senior Program, which has been long-established In ourcommunity, is supported through a vast network of volunteers of all ages and in-kind support from theprivate sector. Our programs EL cost effective. We can provide meals for an entire year to ahomebound senior for the cost of one day's stay In the hospital!!!

We have worked hard for a very long time to provide the needed services with what we have seen asonly marginal support from Congress. For example, our program received 6247,435 In Older AmericansAct Funds in 1984. We will be receiving 8246,996 In 1995. This is an Increase $1,563 for an 11 yearperiod, yet we are serving 40% more meals and other supportive services. This has been accomplishedthrough United Ways, churches, quorum courts (Benton & Carrell Counties), and participant donations.In addition to hunting for local support, we have helped to pursue, through the Arkansas legislature,every possible funding source, one of which was the passage of the Cigarette Tax and the keeping of theSoda Pop Tax. This has all been accomplished at the "Gress Roots" level.

Our current program Is not means-tested, but traditionally has served those with greatest economic need.It maintains the dignity of the nutritionally at -risk Older persons by providing mechanisms for participantsto contribute according to their ability to pay. Means testing the senior nutrition programs will be mostdifficult to administer at our nutrition sties, will give the program a welfare stigma, and most certainly willaffect participation, volunteer support, and local community funding support.

The goal of streamlining programs should be to Increase their responsiveness to consumers. Ourpresent Senior Nutrition Program Is consumer-focused and has broad community support due to Itsflexibility and its role as point of contact and Zink to the broader aging service system. Separating theSenior Nutrition Program from other aging service programs will make it harder for our communities torespond to older people who have complex and multiple needs. The present program Is in place enddoes what it is supposed to do. It is stable and Is a program that shows a healthy partnership betweenthe public and private sectors.

It is extremely Important that Congress understand the negative implications of both removing nutritionprograms from the Older Americans Act as well as block-granting this service with other food programsto the State. The proposed block-grant bill offers school lunch and WIC a funding floor protection butnot the Senior Nutrition Program. Besides the overall amount In funding being reduced to the States,we would be competing with the WIC Program, Food Stamp Program, School Lunch Program, etc.

The Nutrition Programs at our Local level and National level must remain as part of the Older AmericansAct! It is )fie welfare program and should not be Included In welfare reform proposals. Please excludethe Senior Nutrition Programs from the 'Personal Responsibility Act".

Respectfully Sumitted By Nancy Johnson, Director of Aging Services

i6

(1

TH

E W

AL

L S

TR

EE

TJO

UR

NA

L./

.199

4Doe

bs&

Cal

owA

bcd/

Rri

bitg

rffr

i

* *

Sai

new

erat

ersa

tT

UE

SDA

Y. N

OV

EM

BE

R s

, 199

4D

al"

Tile

166

*4 THE WALL STREET JOURNAL TUESDAY. NOVEMBER a. 1994

Frayed Lifeline:Are Stretched T

Cbnlineed Faded POW Poolions. Detroit wee able to deliver holidaymeals to 4.600 elderly shut-Ins.

Unable to feed that total daily. PentBridgewater. Detroit's aging-departmentdirector, es ys...We.re nowhere near meet-leg demand."

The made provide In DetrOil. likeIlion In other dike!, are funded sundaebatty by Meant tunas. which MOMPER upmong the stales hued on the relabve elseof inelr populabon 60 or older. Bath statethen subdivides the pot according to Itsneeds. with preference given to the poor.

Each local aging agency can determinehow it can best match 1M money: Somaprepare meals in./totem. tome pay a-leer: a few hire drivers. although mostuse volunteers. Some hire and some con-tract out social workers who can ecreenand assets the needs of older people. Somedeliver two meat. day. fumy only one.

The Detroit acing agency. for 'mantel*.contract. out meal preparation and reliesalmost eeclusively on MO volunteers, whouse their own an for deliveries. Mort takemeals to 25 people en weekdaYll. &Ming Mmiles a day on average.

In Mkhlgan. federate funds for mealprojects. MI million last year. are down1% from 1116 level,. Inning the lameperiod. with the Old of Weald MiorRIROS.elate funding increased ME. The net resultfor Detroit is that It wrreettly has anelderly - nutrition budget of 13.3 million-1315 lees than In 1503. Back then, Detroitserved 8.000 older people. Today it can feedonly 1.100 day. primarily because of thehigher cost of food.

In New York slate, 2.600 olderare on walling lase for home-de=meals. About 62.000 people are on Uteprogram, but state sweep meet mmany es 10.000 more setudly need them.Say. Ed Kramer. an aginrdeparneentofficial for the state: 'There are a lot ofhidden elderly. particularly In urban areasand hie/triad,. who are literally Malvin' todeath...

The mismatch of funds end need comesamid trailblazing research on growing old.Conditions once considered the unavoida-ble ravages of aging horn cataracts tomental lethargy to .1cm-healing woundsmay really stem from poor diets, deficit. ofvitamin, and other nutrients. reeeueMrs

Geriatric medalists recently minedthe term "anorexia of aging." It Isn't Meanorexia nervosa. In which people developail ',grebe to food or an obseeslon withweight. The poor appetite and debUltaUngweight less of the elderly Mee rarrge ofcauses: depretsion. dementia, dentureproblems and eaUng alone. Poverty laoften a factor, but one nallonal surveyfound Met more then one hi five olderAmerteans, regardless of Income. rou-tinely Alps at least one meal day. Andpoor nutrition raises the tisk of fell,which is Mr many grenade to coldlyMedlral care.

That Something 55 Wile at nutritioncould be problem in a country of eastresources Illustrates how older intilvid-uals. their families and gOvernment We-floe have been caught unprepared by thecombination of increased life expectancyend frailty. Some advocates of the elderlysay long -term solubons will have to bemore creative. perhere offering tax limotire. so more family members can buy andprepare meal. for older relatives.

But for now the main weapon malstellhunger remains the federal nuirlUon

Meal Programsin Feeding Agedframe. Funded under the Older AmericansAct. passed In IMI when Lyndon Johnsonwas president, the congregate-dlning andhorne-dalleerY projects dim anyone overape 10 to apply for free meals. regardless OfIncome. Many of those who me the NWgraro diode mouthing. but more thanhalf of the Participants nabonally ere

Because the Mderly-nuldtion programle not an entlUdnent a Opposed IR NMSocial Security Congress has discretionle approve whatever funds it decide. willmeet the need. 'TM. Is one of the placesCongress can inns -lane funding when theymud pay for entitlement saysJean L. Lloyd. nutrItionngr"ter at 1

Mire administration on aginLast year Met smell funding Increase

for the meal projects. but Congress toSeptember tell the budget for the currentMeal year flat, at nearly MTh MiltonAlong with another 1100 millIon from theAgriculture Department. which rem-bursae states far some food mete, thefinancing has h) Stretch far and wide.

Fen U the 1.3 million people whoreceive meals In Meliorate dining momsor through home delleery get only on.meal per day. the government fundingworks out to about &I cents day perperson. Concluded MO Government AOMinting Office report en the elderly"Funding for nutrition services panepcoelbly provide comprehend.* food asses-tame to the entire NMIble populaUen."

Per men" Pam, the steel, projectscould count on potent avocet** each asRep. Claude Pepper. the testetadve char.010006 the elderly who died in MM. BolakObying group as powerful as the *merl-e.) emaciation of Retired Penang. Mired

WmidettOn. D.C., say* that In meantyear. Meted It has been able lode!. staveoff "demanding eultbaelte." stye Jo Reed.ember coordinator for consumer Mum.

The National Association of Meal Pro-grama an Alexandria. Va. trade Mullcomponed of providers of congregate andhome-clelivered mWs, hobbies for hr-creased funding. but says It Ms not beeneery sumessful either. Noting that herpf7oouopp 's contituents are often frail or

Margaret Ingraham. legtslaUverepresentsUm. says. "We just don't havethe political elouL"

The result Is that the meals projects,much llim the *MTV they Berm baneMame severely strapped. In adman. thecity had to pump 5100.000 In community-de-'deemed block grant. earlier this year toetImInate welting list of MO people fordelivered meek. In Baton Rouge, La.. thesing Mlle, thing budget emblem. teagan soliciting donation. hom mesi recipi-ents last year. prompting mem poor peopleta drop the Piverese. In Salt LabeCity. eUng monm to the meals program has meant Wdng It away flananother eerviee creattng yet anotherwaiting list in which wafters help frailelderly people with rooming. laundry endcooking In Moir boom.

Sometimes the people reached by theoverwhelmed food programs sun auntbattle hunger. The Friend, NellfhbothoodCenter, COnirernle gthing room In SaltLake City, corona only one meal day.Among the dozens who file in for theweekday lunch are the sickly thin womensome call the "stick ladles." Seated atfolding tables around big Mlle home.the women sematimes madly slip tsetseOnion. Into their purses. "they're trying

170BEST COPY AVAILABLE

168

Chairman GOODLING. When you gave me that I forgot the otherthing I wanted to say. Well, I will write you all a note when I thinkof what it is. When my kids say to me thatkids, they are still athome but they are 31 and 35, I think. Life has been pretty goodat home. But when they say to me, that old fellow or that old ladysaid something, and I say, you mean about 65 or 66, or somethingof that nature, then they get the message.

Again, thank you, and we will count on youoh, I know whatthe other thing was that I wanted to say. We got criticism from ourside because we had all liberals sitting out at the table. It wasn'tthat we didn't expect to have a governor or two, but their schedulesdidn't permit it at this particular time.

I will say thatI will change that to all of those who are verymuch interested in nutrition issues in the country, including oldJim who used to sit on the other side of the table and then he be-came a part of the governors administration.

So thank you again for coming to testify.[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the committee was adjourned.][Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

172

1'

169

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM [BILL] CLAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROMTHE STATE OF MISSOURI

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Few things are more important to achieving economicand social equity in this country than proper nutrition.

Hunger and poor nutrition hurt everybody. They rob children of proper physicaldevelopment and the ability to learn. They cause health problems for children andincrease education and health care costs for Federal, State and local governments.Hunger also robs many of our senior citizens of both their health and their hopesfor active twilight years.

An estimated five million children under age 12 go hungry each month and mil-lions more are at risk of hunger.

Just as hungry children will not reach their fullest potential, a nation with mil-lions of hungry and undernourished children will neither live up to its ideals norever reach its potential. Children who cannot concentrate in school are less likelyto become fully productive adults. Our citizens will be less prosperous andwill enjoyless social and economic equality. Our economy will be less competitive in the worldmarketplace.

Ending child hunger is perhaps the best investment we can make in our youth.Properly nourished children immediately become better studentsthey pay betterattention; they're more motivated; they're more ready to learn. In the long run,higher levels of academic achievementyear after yearmean more productive,more employable and more prosperous citizens.

This committee should continue to play a leadership role in eliminating hungerand undernourishment among children in our public schools. That should be a prior-ity.

Hunger and poor nutrition is not solely a problem of the young. Adult malnutri-tion is also a serious national problem.

Congress established the congregate and home-delivered nutrition services pro-grams under the Older Americans Act to combat adult hunger. These programs arean integral part of the wide array of services within the home- and community-based care system for economically disadvantaged older people. These programs arethe glue that binds the Older Americans Act network and home- and community-based services together. Among other things, they facilitate essential linkages toservices, such as transportation and home health aids, and provide the programbase to serve other at-risk and in-need populations, including younger disabled indi-viduals with aids or other diseases.

The nutrition provisions in the Personal Responsibility Act certainly are not thesolution. H.R. 4 combines into a massive block grant major Federal food assistanceprograms, including food stamps, school lunch, school breakfast, WIC, elderly nutri-tion, and the emergency food assistance program. Funding for many, if not all ofthese programs will be cut from their present levels. Let me turn now to some ofthe concerns I have with proposals to convert entitlement programs into blockgrants.

Using block grants to carry out present nutrition programs will not guaranteethat the specific nutrition needs and problems that the Congress has identified willbe addressed. For example, under block grants, States might devote insufficient at-tention to "high-need" studentsnamely, poor, disabled, and underprivileged chil-dren. Because' those groups are not politically powerful, their needs may get com-promised in the effort to divvy-up shrinking State resources. Block grants do notrequire States to serve the needs of specific target populations. The fact of the mat-ter is that there are certain identifiable national problems that are of sufficient im-port to merit special programs at the Federal level.

Once the Federal Government writes the check to the States, it is difficult forCongress to determine whether Federal taxpayers are getting their money's worth.Because reporting and evaluation requirements for most block grants are so limited,Congress will have little information on program participation levels, implementa-tion, and effectiveness.

The advocates for block granting programs that target vulnerable and needy pop-ulations have the burden of proof here. They must demonstrate that the needs ofthese targeted populations will be met more effectively under block grants thanunder current programs. As far as I am concerned, no one has yet made the case.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses.

173

170

STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THESTATE OF TEXAS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today we will discuss what effects the Personal Re-sponsibility Act will have at the local level. From, a recent USDA report, the Stateof Texas could lose 30 percent of the funding for nutrition programs. While I believesavings could be obtained by streamlining administrative costs, a savings of 30 per-cent is not in the realm of possibilities.

No one wants to send a child to school hungry. Studies from several groups haveproven that nutrition programs save tax dollars in many forms such as Medicaidsavings. Society profits from money used for nutrition programs. It may be a tiredand overused cliche but we should not be "Penny wise and pound foolish."

Harris County, which I represent only a portion of, receives $418 million in foodstamps with 24 percent of all children, or 211,096, in the county participating inthe program. Over 5,800 children take advantage of the Head Start program in Har-ris County.

The WIC food program which many believe may be one of the most efficient Fed-eral programs is included in PRA block grant proposal. In Harris County over73,000 recipients in 1993 took part in health status monitoring, nutrition education,immunization screening and many other services provided through the WIC pro-gram. However, if funding is cut by 30 percent, this could mean a reduction of over20,000 people being denied WIC services. Over 20,000 people, mostly children, couldbe denied help with coordinating other assistance programs, family crisis interven-tion, nutrition education, or immunization screening.

If we use the same savings estimates resulting from WIC spending as calculatedby Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.'s 1991 study, a $2 million cut would actuallyshift cost of over $4.5 million in 1996 alone to the State of Texas through Medicaid.

We must work to save money overall, not simply continue to shift costs from oneFederal program to another or shift the costs down to the States.

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. KENNEDY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROMTHE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

Thank you very much for providing me this opportunity to share my thoughtswith the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee concerning the pro-posal within the Personal Responsibility Act to create a nutrition block grant thatwould include senior nutrition programs.

As one who has just come off the campaign trail, I can personally vouch for thevalue of these programs and would like to share with you my grave concerns overthe proposed block grant. If this proposal goes through, the vitality and integrityof two programs, which have gone a long way toward combating the problems of nu-tritional deficiency, declining health, and loneliness that too often mar the goldenyears of our seniors, would be severely threatened.

For many of my constituents their daily visit to a senior mealsite is often the cen-terpiece of their day. We are talking about more than just meals. These programsare the hub which connects the different spokes providing services to senior citizens.It is often the meal which draws seniors to the church or community center. Typi-cally seniors arrive about 10 or 10:30 a.m. in the morning and stay well after lunchtimeclearly they are in search of more than just a square meal. And thanks tothese programs they find itgames, singing, dances, die very things which addquality to life.

Nationally more than 2.5 million seniors a year take part in the congregate mealprogram which serves about 135 million meals. In Rhode Island, 69 sites serve19,249 seniors more than 715,000 congregate meals a year. Meals on Wheels deliv-ers meals to 106 million frail and shut-in seniors each year. In Rhode Island alone,more than 5,100 seniors take part in the program, receiving more than half a mil-lion meals a year.

One reason these programs are so successful is that they are open. There is nomeans-test and there is no "welfare" stigma associated with them. By cutting totalfunding available and leaving the decision how to allocate shrinking funds to States,many may institute a means-test. For proud, independent seniors this may beenough to deter participation. Seniors who need help would end up staying home,possibly eating a less nutritious meal, and further isolating themselves. Addition-ally, the viability of senior centers, which rely on nutrition programs for survivalwould be threatened.

Even if a means-test is avoided in some States, these programs may be taggedwith the stigma of welfare. By pulling non-welfare nutrition programs out of the

174

11

171

Older einericans Act and throwing them in a high-profile welfare reform bill de-signed to address social ills and fix a publicly discredited system, otherwise "inno-cent" programs my become "guilty by association." This is wrong and should nothappen. It is not good policy, and it is simply not right.

When targeting these programs for cutbacks, we must consider what we will belosing. We will lose one more link in the fragile strand of preventive ,health pro-grams vie have carefully built over the years. These programs illustrate well the oldadage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. For example, we canprovid6 a senior with home-delivered meals for a full year for the price of one dayin a hospital.

When I returned to my district recently, I heard time and time again from seniorsand heir families about how much the meal site and home-delivered meal programsmeafit to them. This is one of the great shining examples of government working,and working the way it should. I urge you to carefully consider the impact includingthese programs in a block grant would have on the quality of life of our senior citi-zens.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to share my views with the committee.

92-373 95 (176)

0

175

y

9

A>

ISBN 0-16-047453-1

11780160 474538

176

0000

O

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

Educational Resources information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

REPRODUCTION BASIS

IC

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Releaseform (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").

PS cDs5 304